The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-11-25

Argument Before the state Supreme
fas.x-f


Court.
On the 18TH gay OF last May ten x,na
county sreehoideTS. ~ shesr attorney. w.
r. HAYS. petitioned w + Scott corpora
ton counsel for Seattle pursuant 70 sec
ton 81 OF the act q lSeS. creating a board
OF stats land commissioners. etc. 20 ap-
peal from said board OF state land COM
-Irisssoners 20 the superior court or King
county from the apprSisenent Of Seattle
ti6e lands, alleging IN their petition that
che sum fixed by the appraisers for
which the state should sell such lands
was not mere than ons-tenth OF It's real
value.
The case came up IN ths superior court
before Hon. r. J. Humes, upon motions
81 Moran ct al. and J. =. Fox. TO dismiss
the appeal. upen the grounds that the ap-
peal should have been prosecuted by thu
city attorney, and that thu appeal should
have been from the local board Of tide
land appraisers to the board OF state land
commissioners. as provided by section 81
instead et TO the superior court. under
section 81 OF said act. The appellant OBJ
3ected 70 the court hearing said motion
20 dismiss. upon the grounds that neither
Fox" nor Moran ct al" was a party TO
the record and tha. neither OF said par
ties was interested IN the subject matter
OF the proceeding. and had 10 right to be
heard therein.
Judge Humss sustained the motion 20
supreme court ana on Friday was ar
gued before a full bench. Attorney ". r..
Hays appearing for the appellant and
Attorneys Allen q Powell. Donworth g.
Howe, and StTatton, Lewis q Gilman for
the respondents. 7. +. Fox and Robert
Moran ct al Corporation Counsel Scott
and City Attorney Steele were also pres
ent- The appellant moved 20 strike re-
sponeents brief, for the reason that Meth
eF FOX nor Moran ct NJ. was a party 20
record except ,by a special appearance"
ana further upon thu face Of the record
= appeared that they were neither enti-
tied in LAM 70 intervene nor appear in salt
action, and stated that the respondent
me board OF state land commissioners, %
mad never appeared In opposition 70 tho
appeal. Mr.. Hays. however. stated TO
the court that ne did not press his motion
10 strike with any intention or desire TO
avoid decision Of the appeal upon its
merits. and the court then heard him up
on the merits OF the case Mr. HAYS con-
tended that the court below had erred In
disrniss!ng the case He said that the OBJ
lection OF respondents thar the appeal
should have been prosecuted BY Prank
stee.e, the city attorney. instead OF w. r.
scott. corporation counsel. even though
so stipulated by Mr. scott enuid haVe M
weight, because the city charter OF Seat
lie Dy express terms made the corporation
counsel the city's attorney in all OF fts
Etigaiion upon the civil side of the court
ana that the duties under the charter OF
the so named city attorney were limited
10 prosecution OF cases before the police
ccur, and forfeited bail bonds" that IL
never was the intention OF the legislature
that litigation involving millions OF dol
lars should be entrusted to am officer
whose duties are limited by the charter
as tho city attorney OF Seattle is. to prose-
euuons before the police court. Counsel
commended that the 'city attorney spoken
"a
its generic sense. rather than in any sense
The city may have seen lit TO employ.
The appellants counsel declared in or
position 10 the contention OF respondents
that the law OF 1895, section 81. was pur-
sued in this appeal, and that II was tho
only law In existence at tho time this ap~
peal was taken, on the subject; that sec
ton o. authorizing the appeal from tho
local board OF tide land appraisers expired
by its own limitations May /; that the local
board or tide land appraisers had ceased to
exist on the lst day OF May, and on tho
date OF this appeal. to-wit. May IA. sail
local board was functus officio. ana that
the appeal was and is properly taken and
should be heard upon Its merits; that the
law granting an appeal is one which courts
have always looked upon with favor and
is 10 be literally and not strictly construed:
that in a case Of this kind. where the free
holders allege that the valuation placed
is not moro than one-tenth the actual
value or such lands. the door OF a review
ing court ought not 10 be closed In the
face of the city and state unless the pro-
visions of the law peremptorlly demand IT,
MIR. Alle1. Of Allen a. Powell. Of counsel
for respondents. cOntended on behalf OF his
clients that the appeal was not prosecuted
10y the city attorney; that no request had
been made by the freeholders 10 the city
attorney; that request was made to w.
L. Scott, as city attorney. TO appeal tbs
case: that no request was made TO appeal
from any appraissment made by the local
board. Such request IL jurisdictional AMI
: must he made before the city attorney has
right 70 appeal.
Attorney Allen stated that thu sflpuia-
ton on file from which he read) conceded
that Scott was corporation counsel AMI
Frank A Steele city attorney. and that thu
Seattle tide lands had been appraised BY
tho local board Of tide land appraisers. AMI
the city attorney was never requested 90
appeal from this sppraisement. lie also
called attention % the fact that there was
r varlancy In the description % tie lands
from which the appeal IL taken AMI the
description contained In ths fFseholtsrs'
request
ar. Allen further argued that the original
request 20 appeal ana notsa Of appeal
should have been n3ei im the superior
court within ten d.ys after taklnx tas az
real. but that q was unt 80 nlsr. aud not
untn tha day the motion % dismiss ths
arrsegl Was ar~ges Decision vas rasaryed.