State v. Superior Court of Snohomish County

• Decision Date: 19 June 1929
• Docket Number: 21969.
• Citation: 278 P. 427,152 Wash. 576
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BENBROOK et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY et al.

278 P. 427

152 Wash. 576

STATE ex rel. BENBROOK et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY et al.

No. 21969.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 19, 1929

Department 1.

Original proceedings by the State, on the relation of S. L. Benbrook and another, against the Superior Court of Snohomish County and Hon. Guy C. Alston, Judge, for such extraordinary writ as the facts might warrant. Alternative writ quashed, and action dismissed.

Charles R. Denney, of Everett, for respondents.

TOLMAN J.

Relators by an original petition filed in this court, set forth certain proceedings had in the trial court of which they complain, and in form pray for a writ of review. On presentation, however, their counsel seems to concede that the facts stated do not entitled them to a writ of review and asks that such extraordinary writ issue as the facts may warrant, presumably thereby asking for a writ of prohibition.

The allegations of the petition, omitting formal parts and details, show that on May 4, 1929, the prosecuting attorney for Snohomish county verified and filed in the superior court for that county an information charging these relators, with others, with the crime of being common gamblers on the 2d day of March, 1929, in that at a certain place in Snohomish county they did on that day willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously open up and operate a game commonly known as 'craps,' played with dice, upon which money was wagered, etc., and that, contemporaneously with the verification and filing of the information just referred to the prosecutor did also verify and file another and further information charging the relators, with another, with the crime of being common gamblers committed at the same time and place by the like operation of a gambling game known as 'black jack,' played with cards, upon which money was hazarded; that the relators were brought into court, and were arraigned upon each and both of said informations, whereupon they served and filed a plea in bar, a motion to quash, a demurrer, and a motion for election; the plea in bar being supported by an affidavit indicating clearly that the two offenses charged occurred on the same day in the same place from which the contention is derived that, if the relators were common gamblers at a certain specified place and a certain specified time, they could be no more than common gamblers no matter how many games they may have operated at the particular time and place; and, based on this, is the further proposition that two prosecutions for the same crime cannot be maintained at one and the same time, and that necessarily one of such prosecutions is a bar...