, 1892-04-28
TYPE WRITER'S FEES.
Opinion in The North Yakima
Superior Court Case.
The Respondents are Prohibited
From Doing the Acts COmpia1n-
ed of What The supreme Court
saws.
concluded from Wednesday.

says.
concluded from Wednesday.l
In the last cited case the claimant tool
down testimony under the order of judge
Of court Of record sitting as a committing
cause no statute authorized it
1t is said, however, that the fees of 6
stenographer could not be taxed as costs
against the losing party. Ifit be So (Which
we do not presume to decide, as it is not ir
this cause) the conclusion that the county
must pay it hardly follows. The case citec
from Idaho-McDonald VS.. Burke, % Pac
X. 440-merely held in substance that un
der the statute of that state only fees paid
to an official stenographer could be al
lowed.
Passing now to objections raised to the
issuance Of the writ asked by petitioner il
is urged, in the first place, that the prose
cutting attorney Of the county is not the
proper relator. But we think it would be
stained construction of the prophecies to
hold that the officer whose duty it is made
by statute to represent the state and coun-
ty IN all civil actions and proceedings in
which they are parties, should not upon
his own oath state the facts which consti-
tute the basis of this proceeding. In North
ern Pacific r. r. Co. VS.. Territory, 8 Wash.
Ter. 3O3, the prosecuting attorneys relation
for mandamus was sustained, because it
was held that the establishment of rail
road depot at akima city was matter of
public interest, and certainly the direct
payment of money out of the county treas
ury is of far greater moment Prohibition
is said to be the converse Of mandamus, but
the same degree of strictness as to parties
is not maintaid.
High Extraordinary Legal Rem. SIS 764.
779.
The respondents, in response to the al
Ia tIoo n rNf+
tor Of Yakima county, in which he says
that he does not apprehend any further
proceedings for contempt against himself,
and knows Of none that are threatened.
This, it is claimed, shows that there is no
necessity for the further interference of
this court upon the principle that writs of
proh1pltlon are only issued to prevent
threatened judicial acts in excess of juris-
diction. But 1t may be easily supposed
that the auditor having been once disci-
plined, and being now under suspended
Judgment for contempt, will not again take
any chance Of like treatment, but will
quietly obey each order for the issuance of
a warrant, and thus be able to say that he
does not apprehend further proceedings
against him, with perfect truthfulness.
We do not suppose, however, that this
proceeding was commenced to protect the
auditor, who is abundantly able to take
care of himself by appeal or habeas corpus,
VI SOul6 OGuGT appropriate T6m6uys Inc
real object OF it is to protect the credit and
the treasury of Yakima county against
what are deemed to be unauthorized de-
mands upon them, made in such man
ner, and with such an appearance of au-
thority that much mischief and litigation
will be caused unless they can be antici-
pated and prevented.
Lastly, it is strongly urged that this is
not case for the prohibition of a superior
court or the judge thereof, even admitting
that the stenOgrapher' fees are not a prop
er county charge; and that more of the
threatened orders will be made and war
rants issued thereon.
Were it not for the pronounced attitude
of the court in the proceedings had before
it, and its apparent intention to over
Whelm all opposition by contempt proceed
ings, the case might not have been placed
in such an attitude as to require or Justify
the issuance of this writ Had the court
gone no further than to allow the claim
OF the stenogrOpher, and then left him to
the usual remedies of one holding an al
lowed claim against a county for which the
auditor refuses to issue a warrant because
of the alleged Illegally of the demand, a
suit of some kind would have followed
from which an appeal on the merits could
have been taken, and no warrant would
have issued until Its determination. But
as is apparent from the record here, the
new orders will certainly be enforced with
all the YigOr which characterized the first
one, and long before any appeal could be
heard-f indeed, an appeal would lie from
such an order-numerous warrants would
be issuedi and take their place among the
recognized liabilities of the county, and
perhaps be paid by the treasurer.
In State VS.. Superior Court, 2 Wash. 9,
we laid down the jurisdietional requisites
for a prohibition of superior court, viz. 1.
That it is about to take jurisdiction of a
matter of which, by law, it has no jurisdic-
ton. q That there is still something
which it is about to do. 8. That an appll-
cation to it for a decision that it has not
jurisdiction has been refused. A. That
there is no other proper remedy. To sub
stantially the same effect is State ex rel.
Reed VS.. Jones, 2 Wash. 662. In the for
mer case the writ was refused because the
thing complained Of had already been
done; in the latter, there was the same re-
suit because it was held that the superior
court had general jurisdiction to issue In !
functions, and that there was an adequate
remedy by appeal.
Counsel insist that the county has an
adequate ultimate remedy, when it shall
be sued for the amount of the warrants, or
by injunction against the treasurer, forbid
ding their payment, if they are unauthoriz.
ed evidences of its indebtedness.
But it would be apparent that any resort
to such relief must be at great cost, and
through much litigation, besides the prob
ability thatinnocent parties would be de-
frauded by the acquisition of these numer-
Gus warrants for value. For, while both
parties agree that the infrmity of their il
legality would follow these warrants into
whosever hands they might come, it re-
mains that they do not express upon their
face any statement of the purpose for
which they were issued, and that they are
well calculated to deceive the ordinary
buyer.
We are of the opinion that, under all the
circumstances, the respondents should be
prohibited from doing the acts complained
of, and it is so ordered. STILES, ].
Weconcur: Scott, j., Dunbar, J Hoyt,J ],