Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-06-20
The McIntOsh County Quo warran.
Case.

On Saturday, before Judge Fleming, In
chambers, the case of W. W. Churchill ct.
al. VS.. James Walker ct. al. came up for
hearing. 1t was an application by the pc
titioners, who claim to be the duly selected
Mayor and Alderman of Darien, for a writ of
quo warrsnto against the respondents to
show their right and title to the said offices.
Mr.. Walker and his co-defendants are the
Board of County Commissioners for McIu-
tosh county and, under the acts of the
Legislature, also er-o1fcio Mayor and Alder
men for Darien. Mr.. Churchill and his COPE
titioners, claiming that the law creating this
er-C1tcjo board of Mayor and Aldermen is
void, held an election in April for Mayor
and Aldermen under the old law, which al
lowed the voters of Darien to elect them.
The Commissioners are selected by the
grand jury of the county and commissioned
by the Governor. AS the negro voters in
Darien very largely outnumber the white
voters, 1t would give the negroes virtual
control of the management OF Darien II the
petitioners should succeed In busting the
present board.
The application was for leave to issue the
writ of quo warranto, and called upon the
respondents to show cause why the writ
should not be granted. The Board Of Com
missioners filed an answer showing cause,
and also had prepared affidavits from sew
eral citizens and officials In McIntosh
county setting forth the manifest advan-
tages of the government of Darien by the
Board of Commissioners, in preference to
allowing the municipal affairs to go into
the hands Of persons elected by the colored
population. Before entering upon the
argument OF the case upon its merits the
counsel for the petitioners, Messrs. Harry
Law and John L. Harden, of Liberty coun-
ty, moved to rule out all the show
ing of respondents that raised an
issue of fact with the statements
made by them in their petition for the writ.
| Counsel for respondents, Messrs. w. Robert
Gignilliat, Lester IL Ravenel and Tompkins
& Denmark, opposed this motion upon the
ground that the allowing of the writ of quo
warranto to issue at all was in the sound dis
erection of the Judge, and after hearing fully
what respondents had to say In opposition
to the case made by petitioners. as they IRE
spondents) were called upon to shOlO cause
why the writ should not issue, and that un-
der the law it was the duty of the Judge to
hear and examine into all the circumstances
Of the case, as made by bath sides, and
to grant or refuse the writ after
such Investigation. The Judge failed
to adopt this view Of the cause, and ruled
Oub Ju6 answer Vi TcSpOnucubs, anu RFduL6u
| the permission to petitioners to file the writ
without allowing further argument upon
| the law points involved. The case was then
assigned for hearing in Mcintosh county,
upon the coming in of the answer of
respondents to the writ, which is to be
issued. The Judge stated that he would
not go to Mcintosh county before the fall
| term of the court, which is In November.
The counsel for the respondents excepted
| to the ruling of the Judge, and expressed
themselves as greatly surprised at it, as they
considered that they had a perfectly good
showing against the granting of the writ on
the law points involved, even, If the Judge
should decline to look to the facts of the
case on their side. No opportunity was at
| forded, however, for a hearing upon the
| questions of law, and the matter goes over
until November unless the counsel for re
| spondents should conclude to carry the
case to the Supreme Court at once.