The San Francisco call., 1897-01-03
aside the restraining order hitherto issued
AT ~

aside the restraining order hitherto issued
at Mr.. Wagner's request.
Attorney George II. Francoeur, in re-
plying to the argument by Mr.. Rivers
attorney, said that he desired 10 draw the
attention of the court 10 the acts OF the
Registrar of Voters, which acts he con-
tended were not in accordance with law,
and because of their illegality the present
proceedings had been instituted. 1t was
generally admitted that the registration
law was Limitation on right of suffrage,
some courts having declared such law
unconstitutional, and this law must be
literally construed in favor of the voters.
As the duties of the Registrar arise solely
from the provisions of the statute the acts
OF the Registrar must be strictly limited
by those provisions
Registrar Hinton had attempted to pro-
ceed with the registration under the pro-
visions of two laws that are entirely irrec-
oncilable, namely, the registration law of
1873 and section 1904 of the Political Code.
The registration was opened under the
conditions prescr bed bv the statute of
1878, and had devoted five days to pre-
cinct registration, although the clause re-
latiDg to precinct registration had been
repealed. This was regarded as usurpa-
ton OF authority on the par. of the Regis
trar. If he had right TO make this de-
parture from the plain provisions OF the
altogether. Mr.. Francoeur contended that
there had been an invasion of the rights
OF his client by the acts Of the Registrar,
and that the election under which Mr..
Rivers claimed the Office was void.
Judge Hebbard requested Mr.. Francoeur
to address himself more particularly to
the question as to whether an injunction
would lie in proceeding like the one at
bar
Altar f1rthar arorranf {ba oo,r+ rar
dered decision in favor of Mr.. Rivers, so
far as the primary motion was concerned.
The Judge said:
II wanted it distinctly understood that
in deciding this motion l do not pass on
the Legality or illegality of precinct regis
tration, as suggested by Mr.. Francoeur. I
wish to pass simply on the technical point
as to whether an injunction will lie in
proceeding OF this character. l do not
know what you would call this com plaint
j is termed bill of equity by Mr.. Nc
Eherney, but no matter what it may be de-
cded to be the result in the end is to de-
eide who is entitled to the Office OF Super
visor, and it ultimately will call IN
question the legality of the entire election.
On matters relating to the legality of the
election l would be disqualified to give an
opinion, as would be party in interest
Therefore l confine myself solely to the
legal question in regard to the injunction.
The authorities cited by the defendant
here are plainly to the effect that no
matter what are the rights of the contend
ing parties as to the office, this court has
no jurisdiction to grant an injunction. l
am obliged to hold tnat an injunction will
not lie.
"Such a proceeding as this was never
before attempted in this State SO far as |
know. To allow person to continue in
office by means of an injunction like the
one attempted to be sustained here would
be highly revolutionary. Something simi-
lar in the matter of refusing to vacate
Office was attempted two years ago with
outlegai process, when Mr.. Haley refused
10 give up the Office of County Clerk to
Mr.. Curry, who had been elected. Great
confusion in the courts and in the ad-
ministration OF public business resulted.
Such thing Is not contemplated by the
law. The injunction is dissolved"
AS Judge Hebbard had refused to hear
the trial of the suit on its merits it was
necessary to take the matter to Judge
who was not elected at the last election,
and by consent of counsel the case was
transferred to Judge Seawell's department
of the Superior Court.