The Indianapolis leader. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1879-1890, 1881-10-29
THE ELAM.TAYLOR CASE.
The Decision or Judge Taylor Re-
versed by the Supreme Court.

The suit of Taylor VS.. Elam for the pos
session OF the Office of Prosecuting Attorney
of this Judicial District, which has caused
considerable excitement in legal circles for
several weeks past, was decided Thursday
by the Supreme Court, Judge C. c. Howk
delivering the opinion. The decision of the
Court below is reversed. The following are
the important points in the opinion of yes
terday:
John B. Elan VS.. the State ex rel. Taylor. Ma
riOn c..
Howk, C. There can be no doubt but the ap-
pellant was the Prosecuting Attorney, both de
facto and de jure, of the Marion Criminal Circuit
Court from his election in October, 1875 until
September 49, 1881, when the act of April r. 1881,
TOOK erect His term of office was but two years.
(12. Ind, 297) and If at the election of October
1881. his successor had been elected, such sue
cessor would have been entitled to the Office from
OCTOBER y, 1881, the expiration of appellant
term. Such asuccessor not having been elected.
by virtue of the constitutional provision the ap-
pellant was entitled to hold until his successor
was elected and qualified. The controlling cues
ton is, Did the act of April r. 1881 when It took
effect on September 10, 1881, abolish the Marion
Criminal Circuit Court and the Office of the Prose-
cutting Attorney thereof? This must depend on
the construction to be given to the act His
Honor discusses the various provisions OF the act
ana arrives at the conclusion that
islatuTe that the e&sip cimind he r ceg
Courts, after the elimination of the Inapt word
circuit from their names should continue to
be the Criminal Courts OF the respective Counties.
The words, And the Prosecuting Attorney oil
the circuit shall, by himself or his deputy prose
cute the pleas OF the State in said Court do not
in terms abolish the Office of Prosecuting Attor
ney of the Criminal Circuit Court, and must be
construed with the rest of the act. It's specially
provided that the Judges and Prosecuting Attor
neys of such Courts then lawfully In the possess
lon OF their offices, are so to remain until the
expiration of their respective terms of Office
Appellant Is entitled TO hold until his successor
is elected and qualified, and under the &C
of 1881 his successor will be the Prosecuting
Attorney of the Ninteenth Judicial Circuit
who may be elected and qualified ait the &C
took effect, but not the relator, who by his OWL
showing, was elected and qualified, not only be
fore the taking effect. but before the passage
of the act in question. Under these circumstances
it can not be said that the relator became appel
lants successor in Office. The REALTORS informa
ton bad for two reasons: Cd Because i
showed that appellant was Prosecuting Attorney
both de facto and de jure and lawfully in posses
sion OF the office at the time the took effect
and that his term of office had not since expired
(2) Because it showed that the relator had not
either at the time the act took effect or at an!
time since, any right to the possession of or AM
interest in the office. Judgment reversed.