Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-02-02
THE COUNTY CLERK.
Remanded to Jail by the Supreme Court
for Refusing to Recognize the Le-
gally Elected Board.
An Able Opinion by Justice Freeman
Close of the Term-Harry S.
Clancy Named as Clerk.

Clancy Named as Clerk.
The supreme court on Saturday after
noon granted an appeal to the supreme
court Of the United States in the county
election contempt cases. Ex-commissior'
ers Sloan and Martinez were released
from the custody Of the sheriff on condi.
ton that they give bail in the sum Of $500
each, and joint indemniiying bond Of
$1,000. While the appeal in the mands.
mus case of Pedro Delgado, county clerk
was granted, the court declined to release
him on bail and he was remsnded to
Jail.
The court issued also MI order provid-
ing that the Z. $. district courts shall be
held after the present Santa Fe term as
follows:
First district, at Santa Fe, first Monday
in January and last Monday in May.
Second district at Albuquerque, first
MONDAYS in March and October.
Third district, at Las Cruces, first Mon
days in February and September.
Fourth district, at Las Vegas, first Mon
davs in April and November.
Fifth district, at Socorro, first Mondays
in May and December.
For holding the terms of court in the
counties OF Sierra, Grant, Lincoln, Cha
yes, Eddy, Valencia. Mora, Colfax, San
Juan, Rio Arriba, and Taos the legisa-
ture is expected to provide the dates in
accordance with the recommendation
of the bar association.
Harry s. Clancy was appointed clerk OF
the supreme court, vice Summers Burk-
hart, resigned, and the court adjourn till
July 23.
Following is the courts opinion in the
Delgsdo case
Pedro Delgado, III the supreme Court,
VS. ,habeas Corpus, Territory OF N. NJ,
Francisco Cbaves, January Term, 1921.
Sheriff,
This is an application for writ OF
hsbeas corpus to be discharged from the
custody OF the sheriff Of Santa Re county,
n. NJ.
The petition is very voluminous, and
sets out in full certain proceeding in
mandamus instituted against the relator
by Abraham Staab, Juan Garcia and
William H. Nesbitt, on the IS OF January,
1891, seeking to compel the relator, as
probate clerk of the county OF Santa Fe
and ex-officio clerk of the board of county
commissioners, to perform certain official
duties. This is one Of the unfortu nate
proceedings that grew out of the closely
contested election held In the county of
Santa Fe on the 4th day OF November,
1890. Rival sets OF county commission,
ers claim to have been elected. Candi-
dates of both parties held what they
claimed to be valid and proper certificates
of election. An alternate writ OF man
damus was issued against the relator,
commanding him to recognize the petit
TONERS to that writ as the legally elected
board. In his answer to this writ the
relator admitted that he had declined to
recognize the.petitioners, and sets out at
length his views as to who were entitled
to exercise the functions OF county COM
missioners. The cause having been heard
by the district judge, a peremptory writ
was issued. The relator refusing to obey
the writ an attachment was issued, and
on tue hearing he was fined for contempt
of court and committed to jail until he
should purge himself OF the contempt.
In the case of John II. Sloan and Teo-
doro Martinez, heard and determined at
the present term of this court, we have
discussed at some length the power Of
the district Judge to issue the writs Of
mandamus and Injunction and to punish
for contempts. Much of what was said
in that case finds appropriate application
to this. The case at bar, however, diff
fers from the case OF Sloan and Martinez,
in this: That the latter case involved
the right OF the district judge to direct the
canvassers to canvass the votes cast at
the election, while in the present case,
the question involved is as to the juris.
diction OF the court to issue the writ to
| the probate clerk, directing him which of
the two rival boards he should recognize
as the lawful body.
We have no doubt but that the Judge
had jurisdiction OF the subject matter and
of the parties, and this conclusion settles,
as we think, the whole question raised
by this proceeding.
The writ of mandamus long since ceased
to be preregative writ. 1t is no longer
an extraordinary proceeding, except in
the sense that an injunction, attach
ment or other like process in extraordi
nary.
"It is equally well settled that a man
damus in modern practice is nothing
more than an action at law between par
ties, and is not now regarded as a pre-
rogative writ"
Commonwealth Of KY, vs. Dennison
Gov, ETC.. IA How, 81.
1t would be vain and needless exhi
bition OF research TO undertake to poin
out the almost lnnumerable instances II
which this writ has been successfully in
voked. The following cases will serv
to illustrate the general purposes 70
which the writ will lie.
To compel the allowance Of appeal,
Otto, IA. To allow pension, IA Peters
497 To compel district Judge to issu
execution, il Pet, l73, To compel rail
road company to deliver rolling stock
5th Wallace, S25. To compel counties t
pay judgments, 4 Wallace, 435. To en-
force mandate, 81 How, 445. To rein
state cause, 8 Peters, TIA. To compt