The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-10-13
TO UPHOLD THE LAW.
Why the Commissioners Gre
ated Martin Creek Precinct.
THE MEANING OF THEIR ANSWER.
snoauaimie Toll Road Company Sued
for sn Old Debt-New Cases Filed
The Blotter.

Prosecuting Attorney John r. Miller
and T. c. Hughes have filed an answer in
the case Of Gerald Brown VS.. the County
Commissioners Of King County in the su-
perior court
The county commissioners, acting, a.
they thought, under the law, granted a De-
tition for the establishment of voting
precinct to be known as Martin Creek, and
believing that larger vote than 80 would
be cast there at the coming election, and
in order TO prevent fraud and illegal vot-
ing created the same precinct a registra-
ton precinct and appointed registrar.
Gerald Brown petitioned to the court
TO grant writ of certiorari commanding
the board ofcoUnty commissioners to show
cause why their act in this latter particular
should not be declared null and void. In
their answer the defendants set forth the
claim that Gerald Brown, to the best of
their information, knowledge and belief.
is not resident nor voter of King
county and can consequently have no in
terest in the present proceedings; that the
duties of the county commissioners In this
regard are Legislative and not judicial:
that the plaintiff. if he has any rights, has
his remedy in court of law, and that the
present tribunal before which the case is
brought has no jurisdiction over the mat
ter. In detail the answer says:
On or about September Is, 1892. q petition pur-
porting TO be signed by divers persons. claiming
to be residents OF King county, and desirous of
exercising the right OF franchise, was presented
10 Fred Gascb, who, on October g. filed it with
the clerk of the board of Commissioners On
the same day another petition for the establish
ment Of stevens City precinct was filed with
the CLERK The commissioners, being DESTROYS
of afordng all citizens the rights of their suf-
frage as electors OF the county Immediately
caused an investigation to be made after receiy-
ing the first petition. The commissioners found
that the territory ia townships IS and %, range
II. were not embraced within the lega. bound
aries OF King county, but that the south bali OF
township y, north Of range IL, was embraced
in the precinct known As SnoQuaInie election
precinct; that all OF the territory embraced in
the petition Tor the establishment of Stevens
City precinct was wholly without the legal
boundaries Of the county of King; that If any
portion OF this territory Is in King county it IL
embraced By the petition for the establishment
OF Martin Creek precinct.
Proceeding, the answer alleges that there
are great number of men laboring on
the Great Northern road, and that the Pc
tition granting voting and registration
precinct at Martin Creek in order to pre-
vent violations of the election law and to
See that all who were entitled to vote were
secure IN that privilege and for the reasons
IN the answer advanced, the defendants
ask that the writ of certiorari be quashed.
Argument on the matter will be heard
Friday before Judge Lichtenberg.
An answer was also filed in the ex-parte
case of William Harding, who seeks to
have the court issue a writ of mandamus
compelling the board of county commits
sioners to create a voting precinct at Stew
ems City. The defendants maintain that
no demand has ever been made for the es-
Enlistment of such precinct, that no petit
ton or demand has been filed with them
or made upon them to organize such terri
tory into precinct, and that the board
has no power or authority under the law
to create such election precinct, and that
the court has no power or authority to
compel them to create such precinct, and
that part of the precinct so described is
in kittitas county. and that part of it
which is not in kittitas county is already
embraced within Martin precinct already
created.