Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1873-05-07
ALDERMANIC TROUBLES.
Judge HaIsey Prevents the Board
from Ousting Alderman Davis o1

from Ousting Alderman Davis of
the Third ward from His seat.
Andrew Davis Second Circuit Court
Jacob ssttc;inkuhl. st; TfonSSsscS. ''DH''
The petition for certiorari and super
sedeas in this cause sets up that the Pc
titioner was duly elected and qualified
as a member Of the Board of Aldermen
of the city OF, Memphis, and that his
term Of office has not yet expired; that
the defendant, who was his competitor
for the Office, has combined with certain
other persons who desire his displace-
ment, and has instituted proceedings to
contest his election and qualification,
and is insisting that he be at, once dis
placed, and that defendant or some
other person be put in his stead. That
the proof is confined to two points:
First, that petitioner was not citizen
and resident of the ward at the time of
his election; and second, that he was q
contractor, or had an interest in a con-
tract with the city at that time, and
therefore Ineligible. The petitioner al
leges that both these questions were
passed upon by the Board at the time
Of his qualification. .edt
IL further states that certain members
of said Board have taken offense at his
course and are anxious to have him dis
placed; that they are secretly foment-
ing this proceeding; that they are to be
the triers and judges of the case, and
that it will be adjudged against him
without regard to the law of the case
and the right Of the matter; that
he will be summarily removed and
successor, either said Steinkuhl or
some other person, put in his place;
that his opponents are so far
blinded by partisan feeling that they will
not give him fair trial. The petition
also alleges that the disqualiGcations for
which he is sought to be removed do not
exist, and that he was not interested,
directly or indirectly, in any contract
with the city at the time Of his election.
| 1t states that he cannot safely await n
trial before the Board, and that his only
safety is in removal OF the cause TO
this court before trial.
Upon this petition writsof certiorari
and supersedeas were issued, returnable
to the May term of this court and the
defendant now moves for dismissal Of
the petition and discharge of the super
ssdeas, upon the grounds that the court
had no jurisdiction, and that if it had
the petition in this case was prematurely
| fled and writs prematurely issued.
The case of Bob VS.. the State, I'd Yer
ger l73, is in point upon both of these
questions. Judge Peck, who delivered
the opinion of the court in that case,
uses the following language: In the re-
moval of officers by inferior jurisdictions,
punishment for contempts, unreasonable
exercise of authority in laying out roads
and levying taxes, proceedings OF cor
porationS, regulations under the poor
| laws and many other instances might be
mt TO show the necessity Of such con-
trolling power; and that, in fact, in all
the enumerated cases, it has been eX-
tended by means of some appropriate
writ, furnished either by the constitution,
some statute, or by the common law.
= > In England there is no ques-
ton the certiorsri would lie in such case
either Sefore or after Judgment. Before
Judgment in a case made out, that be-
cause of public clamor justice could not
in ali likelihood be done after judg-
ment for irregularity in the proceedings.
In this country the writ OF certlorari
has been used in like cases-has been
a fayorite writ with onr courts before and
aimee the Revolution. In Eng
land there is a power at hand to frame
writs suited to every exigeney, and IN
this country that power exists IN the
Circuit Court.
The learned judge then proceeds to
argue that, as this power exists 10 the
fullest possible extent in civil proceed
ings." that it should also be held TO APP
NV 10 criminal proceedings. See also
n;llan on municipal corporations, sec
tions 739, 740, and Heiskclrs Digest 3s1.
But II is said that this Court has no ju-
risdiction because the Legislature has
made the Board Of Aldermen the exclu-
s;ve Judges of the qualifications OF its
members. That the Legislature has the
mower 10 confer exclusive jurisdiction
pnon the Board TO pass upon the quah-
6rations of its member is unquestoned.
Rat have they conferred such exclusive
Section 9 Of the City Charter provides
that each board shall judge Of the
qualifications, elections and returns OF
~ own members, and shall prescribe
rules for the determination OF contested
elections. r0r.. a..
The doctrine uponsthis point is thus
laid down in Dillon on corporations,
sections lll and l42: Common law
courts Of general and original jurisdlc-
lion have the admitted power TO inquire
mo ths regularity Of elections, corPo-
rate and others. By quo varranto, Or m
/ formation Of that nature, and IN certain
cases by maudamus. IL - not unusual
7 for charters 20 contain provisions that