The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-10-25
ONLY ONE PRECINCT.
Writ Of Mandate in Stevens
County Case Denied.
THE BOARD ACTED LEGALLY,
Damage Suit Against Town OF siaush-
ter for Cutting New Channel
for White River.

Judge Lichtenberg, OF the superior court. last
night refused to grant a writ OF nandsmus to
compel ths board of county commissioners to
establish q new voting precinct AZ steven. City.
The proceeding brought from Demo
cratic source In the name OF William Harding, a
resident OF the territory which It was proposed
10 include in the new precinct The petition
for the writ was met by the commissioners with
return and answer, which was considered for
tae purposes OF the case is q motion 10 Quash
the writ
The argument OF the case WAS set for night
term OF court Richard Wiusor appeared for
the petitioner, and Prosecuting Attorney Miller
and T. C. Hughes for the commissioners.
Ar. Hughes, who opened the argument, msin-
tanned that the board had already acted accord
Ing to law. II was sought To compel them TO
make q separate precinct of the east half Of
range 10 and the west half OF range II, al OF
which territory had already been placed within
the Martins Creek precinct and the court had
no authority 70 compel them to make another
precinct 1t could compel the com missloners TO
sct II they should fail altogether 70 80. but it
could not compel them to create a precinct OF
any certain TERRITORY. 1t could compel them 10
act, but could not decree how they should act.
Furthermore. IL did not appear from the petit
ton that there were in the territory sought TO
be Organized into a new precinct tho requisite
nEmocr OF voters for such action
Mr.. Winsor said he would admit that the
court could not compel the board 10 create
precinct within any certain bounds. but (:
could compel IL to carry out the Judgment al
ready exercised by t. He devoted most OF his
time TO the argument that inasmuch as a men,
Der OF the board had promised some OF the
petitioners for precinc, Et stevens City that it
should be established, this judicial action
OF the board, and the court could compel
completion OF it
IN Closing the argument Prosecuting Attorney
Miller said that the petitions OF the people for
new precincts had no legal existence whatever
The commissioners were not bound to act upon
them ana took cognizance OF them only by
courtesy. Again, the law provides that changes
in The territory OF voting precincts shall be
made by The board on or before September l.
IL Is mandatory only before that date and the
court cannot compel them after that date to DO
en- act not specially EN- Joined by law. As tn any
promises made to the people, If there had been
any actual promises they were not the official
action of the board. This had not been done
while the board ia session and there was
no record OF il.
In giving his decision Judge Lichtenberg said
that three questions had arisen in the case
The fret was that no demand had been made on
the commissioners, the second that the com
missioners had no power under the Law 10 act
after September l. and the third that the board
had alrcady acted by the creation OF a district.
Under his view OF the case he considered il un-
necessary u pass on the first and second points
Under the third question the pivotal point was
as TO what effect should be given to the an
nouHcement of the commissioners 10 the people
peiitionlng that the precinct should b, estab-
hshed separate from Martin Greek precinct
There could be no doubt that this was not the
oiheiai action OF the board. The body was not
In session and this announcement was no. re-
corded. Aftefward the board created 4 sirgle pre-
cinet, included the territory for which the peo-
pie asked two precincts, and return was made
OF THIS action. They acted M required by law
but whether correctly no. IL was not the
power of the court to determine. The motion
70 qnash the writ was therefore granted the
petition dismissed and the percmptory writ
denied.