Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1889-10-30

would not only be striking out q surplus
/ age but also substituting q new name u
q new party.
Judge Mcconnell contended that the et.
feet would not be to substitute one party
for another but just simply to correct an
error. II there was no ouch thing 81 tbe
n ople OF the territory then there certainly
was nothing at tn head OF the writ and
permission vas asked to make the neces-
sary correction. The intent Of the writ
was that it should be issued in the name oil
the sovereign authority to issue such COM
mand. It was merely q case OF misnomer
| and in such cases courts had authority to
make corrections. In the furtherance OF
Justice it was asked hat the court make
the amendment and thus rectify the COM
| plant. He closed by reading from various
authorities having bearing upon the case.
Mr.. Campbell then read more authorities
| and held that the name of an entirely dif-
ferent party could net be substituted in q
writ.
The court now announced that it was
evident that when the writ was made out
that the intent was to make it in the name
OF the sovereign power, and that failure to
do 80 was merely an error n misnomer,
and therefore ruled that the writ should
people Of the" stricken out, leaving the
heading 1.-THE Territory Of Montana" etc.
Defendants counsel excepted to the ruiz
ing, and exception was noted.
Judge Knowles said another writ had
been served with the same error in it, and
wanted to know il the courts ruling ap-
piled to that writ also. Judge Mcconnell
said the error had been stricken out OF the
original writ during the forenoon as soon
as the court had intimated that the posi-
tion OF defendants counsel was well taken.
The cnnv nj tho writ corvod hu rho ohorsf
had not been corrected.
Nh. Campbell said that now as a regular
writ bad been established he desired to
submit the following motion relative to
the amended writ:
Nov come the defendants, by their at
torneys, Hiram Knowles and Thompson
Campbell, and appearing for the purpose of
motion only, the court to quash and
set aside and discharge the amended writ
OF mandate on the following grounds, to-
wit:
First-That the said court has not iuris.
dlctiOn OF said defendant board, or of said
defendants or either of them, on the follow |
ing grounds, to-wit:
l. That the said writ is made returnable
at an earlier day than return thereof au. !
thorized by law. |
II. That there are two other writs other |
the one herein now in force command. l
ing the same act to be lone and performed
by the same defendant as herein and re. |
at another day, to-wit:
November Z, A. D. 1889. Before the
same court, same judge and no ' forth.
with.
III. That the judge of said court was at
The date OF the issue of the said writ herein,
him, wholly disqualified acting as such
Judge and issuing the said writ because OF |
ais then interest in the result of the pro-
to enforce the same. L.
~. That the judge of said court is now
Wholly disqualified from sitting as such
Judge in the hearing hereof Or making any
or other order herein, by reason OF
lis interest in the result OF the pl oceedings
lereiD.
Time was asked to prepare arguments on
he motion and the court gave until 10
o'clock this morning. /