The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-05-20
THE CONTESTED MAY0RALrY.
The Argument Progresses, and the
case Is still ON Hands.


case Is SIM ON Hands.
The quo wsrrsnto case of John Stone
against the present incumbent of the Dallas
msyoralty, was commenced yesterday before
Judge Aldredge. and at the adjournment of
court, between 5 and o'clock p. m, three
attorneys, Messrs. Barksdale, Morgan ard
Gibbs, had made their speeches. Judge
White will address the court tomorrow.
The question, under consideration was as
to the elect OF the councils decision adverse
10 Stone. The pies Of res adjudicsts was
pu, in by the defendant and demurred to
by the complainant, and it was upon this de-
murrer that the arguments of counsel we're
made.
The first move by tho defendant was to
have the case regularly set on the docket to
be reached in regular course. This motion
was overruled and the decision of the court
excepted TO- Suggestion was then
made 10 have DR.. Crowdu, made
party. which was also over,
ruled and he was brought in, as it we're, BY
invitation on regular citation. The mo,ioa
to quash citation was next made BY defendant
and oyerruled, TO which there were also
exceptions.
Judge White then read complsinanl's or
REALTORS petition, TO which Mr.. Morgan de-
INJURED. on the ground that the case should
have been instituted against the city council,
oyerrued aud exceptions AT this stage the
plea of res sdjudica,a (alresdy decidedly was
made and demurrer put in by relstor. Ar
swer and replication wss also read by
counsel,
Judge Bsrk,dale opened the case in his
usually terse aud vigorous style, contending
that the plea of ros sdjudica,s was not one TO
the Jurisdiction, and that the action of the
council was merely that of canvassing
board and By no means conclusive. He for
titled his position by numerous authorities,
rcsding from Dillon, Cooley, and referring to
state reports of some twenty different states,
alleging that the great weight of decision
was with him.
Mr.. Morgan followed in cogent and W. II
prepared argument, enforcing the idea that
the question was not what the effect of the
councils action was, but what was the effect
of inserting into tho charter the provisions
giving 1t the right to determine tho Qualif~
cations of its own members. He did not
deny the right of the court under some
circumstances to try the case, but contended
that after that body had acted, the district
court could not He relied principally in
cases in the Tex, Repps., 10Th and lsi) and
cited Judge Dillon 10 show that Texas was
an exception to the current of decisions read
by Judge Bsrksdale. Hs also read the
Miliiken decision-the Weatherford care
where Milliken was deprived of his office by
the council, for having rented houses 70
prostitutes. The supreme court declared
the ordinance under which he WAS removed
null and void, but Judge Bonner
in hs opinion stated that if the ordinance
had not baen unconstitutional and void, ths
action of the council would have been flasl
, Judge Barksdsle had previously alluded tC
| Judge Bonner's expression of opinion ii
obiter dctum.
The city attorney msde the concluding
speech for the defense, and in very spirited
effort referred to tho binding effect of th'
. supreme court on inferior corrls of the state
referring the Judge to his prevou. policy OF
J questions involving conflict of state author
lies in which he had been guided by our ow!
, supreme court rulings. MIR. Gibbs argue,
= that there were but three kinds Of jursdic
= lion, to-wii: First, original and exclusiv
i jurisdiction; second, appellate jurisdiction
: and third, concurrent Jurisdiction. Ii
y coniended that the jurisdiction ofthe distrc
:, court could only DO concurrent and tba
4 when the council had exercised its undispute
- jurisdiction no other court could exercise il
" Jurisdiction any more than tho district coul
could try case iAvolvirg sum bctwee
$500 and $1,000 that had already bee
D tried in the county court.
!. The case excites much interest, is we
u conducted snd will probably occupy all {
Q to-day.