, 1873-03-01
That is the Question Which Judge
Gary is Called upon to .,
Decide.
Arguments Of Messrs. Stiles,
0oudy, and Tuley.
A Decision to Bo Rendered This
Forenoon.

u ".
at 10 o'clock,
Tho respondents flied n COPY Of tho official
bond Of Mr.. Reno, wherein it IL reoitod that he
? holds un1or tho 1rayor'e appointmont. and an
affidavit to tho effest that no other bond was on
Gle.
Mr., ,Tuloy said ono question would have to be
settled frat Tho relatorn had filed m additional
affidavit aftor the rule WAS made. Ho moved to
strike Il IRON, tho files.
Mr. Goudy said Gen. gtiles had mtnute1y criti.
cized the first affidavit. which he Ind believed
contained nil the essential nointa. Ho had then
t1,o,r,,t t,,oro ,so,,,d In ~ n1,t ~ t,1;1,, t,,o
tnousnt thefe Woula 20 NJ nens, ,on n!!ng mo
Information. sanco thero vas, ho lad fled the
supplemental affidavit which was In order, and
should not bo stricken from tho flea.
Tho Court thought 1t admissible only ii in re-
'puaa1 ~ Nv" a,o. =,
h1r. Tuloy said that affidavit waa filed two days
Ago, and tho respondents had but Just alod any.
Tho Court said that made no difference, il tho
.,.a p...a.sant. ia H., t,,s ,esnar,as,,t.
'ne s'asemon's ,nauo ~ 'n@ .eelonuen.s' M
Mr. Iuiey saia the ufst amaav'e "as oy hiok9o'
for h,naolt md Reno. Tho nflidayitB Of tho re-
aponaenta wera that Reno had aotod only
,,.,ao. ~, .,ro,nt,,or+ hv +bo, Mayor, Dtd not
unuat an eppou.on' . 80. =. NV % ~ .o;.,. ~
tnat make II improper so p1oeoeo on Jo'' ny,
plaatosil s3sn stilss said tia 1,no o, the supp,omsnt.
afidayit did not change tho positionB lie had
ta,,oo Tho roanonaonta con,a l,o15 that tho f.otn
~. .,, .o,aa,it IA nnt ,ssrrnnt nvn@ ,assa s ~
IN tue a,haA''1 a,o nos wa1fahs gtvlng loavo 20
hle tho Information, or that tue facts presented
~ sns anaA'sa .4 ~ ' - p o,a ha snas
clnim % Of I'M Mason % and Il wseht to hola oflco nas M
rolatora Mr, Rono's bond. The on1y ono On flo.
ehovod that he was appointed by Che
nonnci1 eU" and md no roforepca ,p1 raa made To INV
election. Tho 10 an. atidsnt s1nt. relatlVe to henos
bei1,g voted for and elooted waa aigned only By
okke. me re-. auppten6ntat En- anavh na tha aAla @ Meno
by of lis eseto @ "u t sea reaa
from tho proe9Sahga oi tne nonId 81 ,t;oace,
Maero IT aad unaries a: Aono @ exnaoisna IN ms cer
hhcate OF hppq1ntment from thg Mayor ana
toox nus soa enU & nnu nesvr ,mtnt cet g ~ ngs
claims rested On ~ ono foundstion, and Klokke's
On another M, Inc 1ncea were n1s ~. inc aame
they were nSe. Il was not Inc cla'm. o!
tMo peIaons ~ .nd esnay na.., otaca, AHa
ine s ao ~ ~ tha crsntnp eaVn = ot tx
seia.o5e ~ TO % he an na nn1H 10 R m ongo
ehou4a 20 B1tsn 70 onu onty ~ iuo ~ ntoInI n;xs
s1on, sns o1,a Wore mt tn tc aama u ncn Nor
,sauo aua ho g;von y t. u
eogs 20 oos
Iae ana ~, w,,,cI, tho gourt con11 mt n,sa lids.
ment msa I'm in tho nrssent nroceodinr. e'' ''t4S
Tho court eaid % there neyor was any Office
II T. SS gss i; s ss.s thsa
inoporatiyo under the construction put on It By
defendants. : -.
Mr. Goady did not think It necessary to refer
to anything except tue pointa faiaed by the de-
eise: es''
Mr. Tnley denied that They had right,
which they would not concede, to raiae tho
question whsther tho o9uls M had {urisdiction,. y,
waya, but the Inst ruling Of tho Supreme Court
seemed adverse to the Criminal Court having
Jurisdiction. The only ground the rolatorn
set up wns, TINT they wore elected to
Office; There was such an ELECTION, but tho re-
spondent could question whether there WAS an
elective office. II there was not, they could not
flo nn information: He read from the Mayors
bill to SHOW that the Mayor enonld appoint al
members o. boards. Dld not TINT act repeal so
election OF Police commissfoneie The language
Of the act Waa clear, but broad. They were NOM
heEs OF board; Ihe . hrat board was appointed BY
the governor, N loo1. htteIWaso ne members
wss i at hs, hs oa @ b assdd ID
by tho people Of the county: Was thst last
provision In conflict with the Mayors bill !? The
respondent held tue MAYORS ,. bill repealed Il;
tnat tne , eeeson t .t was tt tnesy, ana tnst tue
election undor 3 law which had boon repoalcd.
The affidnyita filod by the respond
ents went to, tho question. whether
the REALTORS should be allowed to
file joint information, since they showed that
the relasors cnimed office under different title.
Klokko might claim by election, Reno only by
appointment. And tho power Of the Mayor to
remove bis own appoiutco could not be ques-
tionod. Was not Reno cstoppod from denying
tho Mayors power? Judgment might bo for
Klokke aud against Reno, ind, therefore, the
proceedings should not DO upon tho same in-'
formation.
-, The Court asked II the ailldayita showed whom
Wright and Mason woro aevotally appointed to
SUCCEED: ..,,
Gen: sti!ea thought not, atfirmatlvely.
Mr. Tuioy thought tho supplemental affidavit
was fled to meet tho insutlieloncy Of the first
one, as pointed out by Gen. stiles. y did not
show the rolators were lawfully entitled, and
omitted any ayorment that they were not law
fully removed.