Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1893-07-07
THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
Motion to Dissolve the Injunction
Against Cunningham Under
Argument To-day.

In the matter of the shrievalty contest
the motion of Cunningham's counsel to
dissolve the injunction granted by Judge
Seeds in behalf of Sheriff Conklin until
title to tho Office could be properly tried
by quo warranto proceeding, came up
before Judge Fall at the court house
house this forenoon. On behalf of Sheriff
Conklin, Messrs. Catron and Bartlett filed
the following motion:
Now comes the said complainant in the
above entitled cause, before the Hon. A.
B. Fall, sitting as Justice of the first juci-
cial district court, in the absence of Hon.
Edward p. Seeds, the judge thereof, and
moves tho court to continue and postpone
any hearing upon motion to dissolve the
Injunction in said cause until the goth
of July, A. D. 1898, for the reason that
said INDUCTION was granted after hearing
the defendants In said cause on their
demurrer and the objections to the said
bill of complaint and objections to grant
ing said I'M unction, and after full discus
sion by both complainant ard defendant,
the Hon. Edward p. Seeds, judge of this
court, ordered said injunction to be is
sued and fixed the Goth day of this month
for hearing in said cause of any showing
made by the defendant why said in
junction should not be continued; be-
cause said order of the court still remains
in full force and effect and not in any
wise modified, vacated, or removed, and
because after the said defendant has been
heard in opposition to motion for in
junction that said injunction has not
been granted ex-parte, it is contrary to
the course and practice in equity to ignore
said facts and also to ignore an order Of
court setting down the cause for special
day, for hearing on cause, and because it
is not proper for one judge to set aside
and override the orders of another Judge,
especially when that other Judge is the
Judge of the court where such order is
made; and for other good and sufficient
reasons, apparent from the record in this
case.
Arguments were then made by Mr..
Conklin's attorneys in behalf of the wis
dom and e1pediency of the court grant
ing this motion. 1t was set forth that
Judge Falls action in coming into this
district and opening this case after it had
been set down by Judge Seeds, sitting in
regular term, for specific day, was not
only infringing on judicial courtesy but
was contrary to the spirit of established
practice as ruled upon by Justices Miller,
McCreary and Brewer, of the United
States supreme court, and in direct vio-
lation of rule No. 80 of the supreme court
practice in this territory.
Judge H. L. Warren, for defendant
Cunningham, commended that it would be
impossible for Judge Fall to act on this
motion until he had had placed before him
the matters set out in the original bill
and demurrer thereto; and suggested that
as far as his side of the case was con-
cerned the hearing at this time cover
both the mandamus and injunction fea-
lures of the case as these were based on
the same state of facts.
Judge Fall overruled the motion for
continuance to July 20 and at 2 O'Clock
this afternoon the consideration of the
case was resumed.
Sheriff Conklin's attorneys moved to
quash the writ of mandamus on the
ground of detective service, it not having
been made on 4he sheriff in person as
specifically directed by the court. The
motion was overruled, and at $3.50 O'Clock
the arguments commenced ON the motion
to dissolve the injunction restraining
Cunningham from attempting to enter
upon the duties of the sherif's Office.