Arizona citizen., 1876-01-29
THE CITIZEN.
sUPREnE COURT OF ARIZONA.
Thcmas Graves, Plaintiff and Ap- peIIant vs John T. Alsap Defen- dant Band Respondent,

c. u. Oury, Esq., TOT appeiIanI John T. Alssp, Esq, for respondent
 This is an action in the nature of {
 iquo-warranto in which the plaintiff
 seeks to obtain possession of the offic
 of Probate Judge of Maricopa County
 The complaint alleges that theplain
 tiff is Probate Judge of Maricopt
 County. that on first Monday in May
 1875. an election was held for the offio'
 of Probate Judge therein for the tern of two years from the first Monday ot June, 1875, and that at such election the plaintiff was duly elected. Thai he received 6 certificate of such election from the proper officers and in due form; that he gave bond and qualified
 as required by law, and that he de-
 manded of the defendant and was en-
 titled to the possession of said office of
 Probate Judge, further alleging that
 the defendant had on the first Monday in June, 1875, usurped said office and
 has ever since withheld the same
 from the plaintiff, demanding judg-
 ment against the defendant that be be
 busted from such office and plaintiff
 put in possession of the same.
 The defendant in his answer denies
 that the plaintiff is Probate Judge of
 Maricopa county-denies that the
 plaintiff was elected to such office at any la wfully authorized election there
 for; that the election pretended to have
 been held in said county, on the first
 Monday of May, 1875, wssnot author
 ized to be held by any statute law of the Territory of Arizons; alleges fur
 ther that the defendant was Probate Judge of Msricops county, that he held said office by appointment of the Governor of the Territory of Arizona under a commission from him dated the 23d day of February, 1875; that said commission by its terms appoint cd him such judge to have and hold the same until the 31st day of Decem- Der, 1876, that he had executed the off cial bond, taken the oath as required by law and was in the lawful possession of the office of Probate Judge.
 On the trial of the cause no evidence was given by either party, but the case was submitted on stipulstions be- tween the parties, as follows: That on or about the 25th day of January 1875, bill was introduced in the Leg islature of the Territory of Arizona, then in lawful session, authorizing and directing that a general judicial election be held throughout the Terri tory on the first Monday in May, 1875, and every two years thereafter, and that at such election Probate Judge for each of the counties should be elected.
 That said bill passed both houses of said Legislature, was duly enrolled and presented to the Governor for his That the Governor returned said bill to the house where it origins- ted to- wit, the Council, on the 12th day of February, 1875, without hls approv- sl. That on the same day the Council again passed the said bill by vote of two- thirds of the members thereof, the vote being taken by yeas and nays. That the said bill was then in the reg liar manner transmitted to the House 'f Representatives for its action, and 'n the same day the said house passed :he said bill by 8 vote of two-thirds of ts members, the vote having been sken by yeas and nays, and the said pill was then regularly returned to Council. That the Council returned he bill to the,Governor. It is further stipulated that the election or pretend d election mentioned in plaintiffs was held ss therein stated. That the plaintiff received the great st number of votes, that he received ( of election from the board # supervisors, that be executed official 'ond and demanded and was refused 'ossession of the office as alleged in he complaint. That defendant held aid office by commission of the Gov I rnor, in manner and form ss set forth t D defendants answer. l
 The stipulations in this case do not ppear to relate to any questions of act between the parties that are per ons! and private in their nature, ! he determination of which might af- f ect only the interest or conduct of the 1 srties to this action; but they relate lmost wholly to what transpired on eTtain days in a Legislative body 'hen having under consideration the uestion of the passage of law to 'rovide for the election of Probate udge Tn every county of the Territory, !; law general in its character, of in i crest to the living, and affecting the t