Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1893-1895, 1895-01-07
THE ASYLUM LAW CASE
Was the Mandate According to
Decree?
The COURT HEARS ARGUMENT.
Will the State Board Be Put in
Contempt

Argument Of counsel was heard To-
day before the Oregon supreme court
on the Eastern Oregon asylum case,
Chief Justice Bean presiding over
full bench.
The purpose Of the motion argued
today is to inquire into the kind OF
mandate which should be handed
down upon the entry Of the following
decision In the case;
1.-THE demurrer should be sustained,
and It Is 90 ordered, and that the cause
b, rernanded to the court below Tor
further proceedings not inconsistent
with this opinion"
THE MANDATE
as handed down II is claimed by couh'
Il for respondent A. e. Taylor, OF Polk
COUNTY, does not conform to the above,
INT goes much farther and dissolves
the Injunction, when under ordinary
rules Of pleading the respondent wonld
have right to amend their complaint
and go ahead to trial Of the matter on
Its merit.
THE MOTION
fled by Messrs. Holmes and Bigger Is
a. follows:
"Comes now the respondent and
move. for an order recalling the man
d Ate heretofore issued herein, and upon
its return to this court that the same be
reformed, and amended 30 as to con-
form to the opinion heretofore handed
down for the following reasons:
/. That II the mandate is allowed
TO remain as 1t now stands, the respon-
dent will be deprived Of his right to
amend his complaint In the court be-
low.
III. That the opinion as handed
down by your honorable court, and
fled therein, does not dissolve the In
junction issued In the cause by the
court below.
Ill. That the mandate as issued by
} this court does not correctly state the
order as made there In the opinion
fled.
WHAT WILL RESULT.
II the court sustains the form OF man
. date handed down by Its clerk the suit
} to enIoIn the proceedings In the East
\ ern Oregon asylum case Is knocked
3 out. Should the court not sustain
It's clerk, the officials who went forward
3 on the strength OF the mandate and
Y purchased the site At Union, Oregon,
] will be In contempt.
J The supreme court met at IL O'Clock
= today 10 hear argument OF counsel on
Y this subject.
THE ARGUMENTS.
Mr. Bigger said the opinion did not
dissolve the injunction IN the court be-
low and that they would have asked
leave 10 amend their complaint 10 con.
. form with the supreme court opinion.
The mandate cut the ground out from
under the feet Of respondent aud acting
upon II on December II the commits.
slonsFa had gOns ahead and bought the
! land foT go 900. They asked leave TO
recall the mandate and amend their
compliant.
. Judge Morsland argued that the
Judgment dissolved the injunction II
the opinion dld not Counoil had not
taken their ton days to nls motion foI
Tsheanng November these counsel
asked recall VI the Uisndale when Il
: sAs TOO lale for the court 10 reconsider
: M
sustaining the demurrer October 10
, KILLED the inlunollon, ihs order oi ihis
court 10 ffom ihs record " court tbs
. stats board ln perfect good faith bad
!, boughi the lAnds, the money sAs paid,
ths dssds TsooTdod apd u vas too late
60 feoall nounasl hsd slept on lhell
Hghls,
4 Al 0olmss, sho hsd bssn olsfh ol
! ihs suslsms oluH, sald u sAs > quss
! lion shsihsf tbs msndsis eoriselly ~
! eliso ihs dsenes " lhs spI,sllsis's ooull
nases ssIs ususlly lsmsndsd sllhopl
plsjudlos 20 slihef psliy ihs slaiuls
; ald Boi o,lnlsinplais onsiRal iudsaisnis
! ~ dsagsss flosp lhs suplrRs eaun u
! slniply fsa,sndsd ~ ihs lnisFlal epulis
~ isllhsI pI,sssilnss seaoldlgg ~ lll
dlIsellan, kss haa olaf A alfs0ilop
! " dlssulgs AZ ipiaaellpp hsW pss ps
n,sials ihs oplslpn lsh ihs gaesllop
" sgslllss else
1hs RsHasis elassd "a pld ihs eeall
lnlsna ~ slap lhls lllissllae pisAplol
) ily " ala a slsn ssasal ~ ~ shfaa
sea slsks ~ seas - ~ bsd sassssis'l
nilsbi u n,sas w ls ~ as.lsiau
'ssRssi hs4 isslsa slsH ~ aslls ~
J ~ fsfssia saa Rsks ~ pssdlss.
} tenielR
} Alislusg lisasls NhsnhsgislH a.
J plussni sha sss sstsa A. spssk
/ lif ssid ~ lhf nalalsls haRf ~ hsi
. .sa...4 a. Al - lI..