The Defendant as a Plaything of the State

The brief of Charles T. Repath, respondent, in reply to the prosecuting attorney, who appealed to the supreme court from the decision of Judge Humes in granting Repath a writ of prohibition, was filed in the superior court yesterday. The case in the beginning was one of the most interesting that had been before the superior court for many months. Repath was charged with forgery by the state, but the jury acquitted him. However, before he had the opportunity to leave the courtroom he was re-arrested on the same charge, but in connection with another check. The state did not bring the case to trial within sixty days, the time named in the statutes, although Repath was ready and demanded to be tried. The matter was taken before Judge Humes, who dismissed the indictment and discharged Repath from custody. The prosecution, however, had Repath re-arrested on the same charge. In the brief filed yesterday, it was argued that this process makes the prosecuting attorney the king of his domain and the sole arbiter of the liberty and reputation of our citizens, from whose judgment there can be no appeal.