Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1883-10-07


uOtlOns. Ru11ngs, DemuPrerss An
swers and Another Csnsiauanee.
The mandamus case Of R. Sadlsr against
the County Commissioners was resumed
in the District Court yesterday morning,
His Honor Judge Rives presiding. Dis
trict Attorney CARRIER, on behalf Of Com
missioner Smith, stated to the Court that
Mr.. Smith had Ut all times been willing
and ready to act on the bills of R. Sadler
presented to the Board. His Honor re-
quested the District Attorney 70 reduce
the statement to writing and have II fled
with the Clerk, which Was accordingly
done.
Hon. Thomas Wren, on behalf of de-
PENDANT, moved to quash the afidavit and
petition Of plaintiff. first, because the petit
ton did not state facts sufficient to entitle
the plaintiff to relief; second. that the writ
was not entered in the name Of or by the
authority Of the State Of Nevada; third,
that the affidavit did not state that Dav.
E. Baily, VIM. Arlington and N. Smith
constituted the Board of County Commits
%sioners; fourth. that the affidavit did not
state the bills were reached in the order Of
their presentation; fifth, that the afidavit
did not set forth whether the bills were
itemized according to law; sixth, that the
affidavit was uncertain in not describing
bills sufficiently; seventh, that the AFFIDAVIT
did not state that the meeting was q legal
meeting. Mr.. Wren cited authorities on
motions to quash, and made . lengthy
argument to sustain his position.
Mr.. Mitchell followed in citing authori-
ties to prove that the motion ought to be
quashed and that the writ was fatally
defective.
Geo. W. Baker occupied the Court for
about an hour to show that the writ, afi-
dsvit and petition were faultless and
should prevail.
During Mr.. Bakers argument, His
Honor, desired to know whether any bills
had been presented and acted upon by the
County Commissioners subsequent to
those presented by Mr.. Sadler.
Commissioner Arlington, who was pres
ent, on being questioned, evaded . direct
reply, and sought refuge in the answer
that Mr.. Sadler's bills bad been laid over
from time to time to give Mr.. Baily IN op-
portuDity to examine them thoroughly.
That had been the course pursued with all
bills about which there was some ques-
ton OF correctness. In answer to another
question by His Honor, Mr.. Arlington
partially admitted that some bills had
been passed. but did not think any for gen.
eneral merchandise had been acted upon
Mr.. Baily concurred in this.
Mr.. Ssdler here came forward and
whispered in his counsel's ear that Rem
ington, johnson 4 Co. had had . bill
passed subsequent to the refusal Of the
Commissioner to act on his bills. Mr..
Baker made the statement to the Court,
and resumed his argument.
Argument closed shortly after IL o'clock,
and His Honor instructed petitioner to
amend his petition, and serve the amended
document on defendants before Q O'Clock,
the defendants to answer forthwith, after
which q recess was taken until 2 o'clock.
When the Court r~eassembled Mr.. Wren
entered . demurrer, which was overruled
by His Honor. Mr.. Wren then asked for
. continuance till Monday, to get an
opportunity to look up the law and
to post himself and prepare an answer.
He knew absolutely nothing about man
damus proceedings.
Mr.. Baker desired the case continued
until Tuesday, il there was to be . con-
tinuance.
Judge Rives asked counsel to make the
time as short as possible, and finding both
sides agreed, gave defendants until to-mor-
row 1t IL o'clock to file An answer to the
amended complaint or affidavit, and
plaintiff till Tuesday morning st 10 O'Clock
TO file exceptions, when the Court ad-
iourned.