The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-09-14

is chargeaDle with contempt OF the
sovereign, as we'll as grievance to
the party injured, and the courts are,
therefore, less stringent as to the de-
gree of interest required of the appli-
can't than in cases of mandamus and
other extraordinary remedies" High
on extraordinary legal remedies, Sec.
779.
l think the case presented by the
plaintiffs
CALLS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE
WRIT
of prohibition, and l will now consid-
er what part of the restraining relief
prayed for by plaintiffs may be grant,
ed at this time. The plaintiffs ask
that the election officers be restrained
from holding the election in certain
precincts. This is not within the
scope of the writ which can
be directed only to a court
and not to election officers. Neither
could writ of injunction be issued to
restrain election officers from holding
what must be void election, because
the mere holding of an election does
not iniure anyone. Neither can tie
commissioners court be dire by q
writ OF prohibition to set aside a vnid
order to hold an election, because the
writ is limited in it's functions to the
prevention of further action by a court
after the writ is issued. The writ
when issued will, therefore, extend to
prohiting the expenditure OF public
money to hold the election or pay the
officers thereof, prohibiting the
declaration or entry of the result OF
the election and the publication the re-
of by direction of the court. Under
the procedure applicable to this writ
as stated in the common law authori
ties, it is not issued in vacation, but
only by the court in term time, but
q rule may be entered in vacation to
show cause at the next term of court
why he writ should not issue, which
rule has the effect of restraining order
until the rule is further acted on.
High on Extr. Legal Rem, zee. 1856.
In MAYO, Mayor & G. V James, II
Grattan, (Va.) 26, it is said with refer
ence to this practice: mo inconven-
fence can result from requiring the
rule, as the service of 1t will have the
effect of staying the proceeding COM
planned of until further order dis
charging the rule; and 1t seems that
the defendant or the judge of the in
ferior court would be subject to an
attachment for going on with the
proceeding after such service and
before such further order"
In this state when the district
court has jurisdiction the judge
may in vacation issue any
writ which may be necessary
to enforce the jurisdiction which the
court may have when in session, but
the Judge can not in vacation make
his action on such writs final, for this
would interfere with the right of ap-
peal, which can only be taken from a
court. A rule will therefore be made
and entered, requiring the defendants
composing the county commissioners
court of Williamson county to show
cause at the next term of the district
court of Williamson county, to be
commenced on the first Monday in
January, 1894, why the writ of prohi'
bition should not be issued to them,
restraining, enjoining and prohibiting
them, and each of them, acting as
court, from making any decision or
declaration or entry in the minutes of
said court of the result of the election
heretofore ordered by said court to be
he held in said county on the 18th
day of September, 1898, to determine
whether the sale of intoxicating IL
uuors shall be prohibited in said
county, and that the defendants in
the meantime be restrained from do
ing any of the acts aforesaid.
F. G. MORRIS,
Judge of Twenty-sixth Judicial Dis
trict.