Idaho semi-weekly world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1875-1908, 1890-05-09

"a' eileu III 1857 be-
iore the Judge of this Court, at cham
pefs, III pursuance of a statute the,
III force, and judgment upon the mer.
It's rendered in favor of defendant
from which the relator appealed to
our Supreme Court, which, at the Jan.
uary term, 1889, by its opinion
now on file in this court, held the
statute upon which the action is
oased, unconstitutional and void. and
by its remittltur here, ordered that
the "cause be, and the same is hereby
reversed, and the case is remanded
to the court below to proceed in such
manner as it shall deem proper"
With the opinion and remittitur sent
down to this court are also copies of
the record entries Of that court which
show that that court on March II.
1889, ordered that the cause be re-
versed, and on March Is, 1889. or
dered that the cause be dismissed.p
while on March 18th two of the
Justices ordered the cause be re-
versed. 1t further appears the cause
was placed upon the calendar of this
court, and at last term was continued
to this term, and the defendant now
asks that it be dismissed.
AT the January term, 1890, of our
Supreme Court said Havird, by a
action commenced in that
court, asked a mandate upon the
County Commissioners of Boise coun-
ty, for the payment of the amount he
claimed due him as Sheriff of said
county for the years 1SS7-8, and af-
ter hearing, such mandate was Or
dered by that court. In that action
said German interviewed and he ap-
pealed from such order to the U. S.
Supreme Court and such action for
mandate aforesaid is now pending in
said last named court. The re ator
now claims that such appeal so in
wolves and includes this action that
this court cannot now make any dis
position of 1t until such appeal shall
be determined.
1t is true that in the last action al
egations were made in some of the
which involved the original
'acts and merits of this action, but as
appears by the several opinions of our
Supreme Court, rendered in the last
case, 1t entirely disregarded all issues
INVOLVING the election contest and
.reated them as res adjudicata, and
only the question of de-
endant's right to proceed by man
late or whether he must proceed in
ome other way, and this it seems
clearly is the only question involved
n the pending appeal to the U. S.
supreme Court.
No appeal has ever been taken to
he last named court from the decis-
on Of our Supreme Court holding the
tatute unconstitutional, and that
ourt now has no jurisdiction whatev
r over this case, and certainly can
lot make any order in any way af-
ecting it.
Suppose the U. S. Supreme Court
hould in the mandate case now
there, not only reverse the
lction of our Supreme Court on the
question of the mandate, but also hold |
hat the election law was valid, and |
entirely overturn the principles an
bounced by our Supreme Court in
both cases, by what process of law
can an order or direction of that court
be made to apply to another case al
ready decided, not appealed from nor
in any way pending before it? It's
true that court may, in determining
the appeal now pending there, an
nounce some principle of law contra
rv to what has been held in this case,
and which, had it been announced
before this case was determined,
would have controlled it; but our Su-
preme Court has already, at its term
in 1889, declared the law which must
govern this court in this case.
Again, suppose the U. S. Supreme
Court shall in the action now append
ing there, reverse the action of our
Supreme Court in a mandate case,
how can that effect this court? The
mandate of the U, S. Supreme Court
will come down to our Supreme Court
and there it will have to stop, because
there the action commenced. Nc
mandate or notice of its action will
come TO this court. This court vii
simply have nothing to do with thai
case or anv order made by any cour