The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1898-02-03

~~FAO ksAO OVUHS A1OCBDhVUs
The following is the full text, of the
decision of the Supreme Court in the
certlorari proceedings practically the
appeal of Mayor Townsend from
the Judgment of impeachment. The
HERALD procured the copy from the
clerk OF the Supreme Court:
SYLLABUS.
william ID. Townsend petitioner. VS. G.. C.
,IroDey, ct al. respondents
Inc city charter authorized the common
council to remove the mayor For cause y
sie e r 81, and continuously refused to
Irtaln purpose. On the evidence held the
counsii were not warranted i'm finding that he
a,ea IN PAD faith or that he willfuliy or per-
VorSeiy dlSTegarded his duty, or that he was
generally incompetent to prefOrm his dutieS
t. such al extent as to warrant his remnvaI
ana the orders convicting and removing him
are reFe'seo anu SET ASIDE. -Canty.J.
. DECISION.
The city charter of Sank Centre CSp. |. 1850
Oh. ~ authorizes the city council to remove
'for cause" any person appointed to O ice by
them or elected by the people Sec. 4. Oh. p.
but it does not define what shall constitute
cause. On Sept. 10Th, 1897. the council pre-
ferred charges of misconduct I'M office ag inst
the mayor and on January Sd, 1888, they tried
him on these charges. found him guilty and
by resolution removed him from Office. A
writ of ceftOrari was issued out of this court
for the purpose of bringing up and reviewing
the proceedings, u return was made thereto.
and the case was argued and submitted.
Soon after the commencement of the removal
proceedings a writ of prohibition was applied
for and denied see State ex rel " Ward, ~ n.
w. II. S25.
The first specification of the charges states
that the city council had duly and lawfully
ufchased certain pieces of resi- estate situa
in said city for the public purposes and use of
said city," from certain named persons. the
owners thereof, for the sum Of i,750 and had
duly appropriated that sum out of the general
funds of the city for the payment of the same.
ana had directed an order to be drawn ON the
city. treasurer for that sum payable out Of
said fund to said persons; that the city clerk
drew the order accordingly, presented it to
relatOr Townsend, the mayor for his signature
on August 3d. 1897, and he, knowing all of
said facts, N''did then and there wilfuIIy arbi--
trarily. wr0ngfully and uhlawfully and with
out any sufficient excuse therefor, refuse and
neglect to sign his name. as mayor of said
city, to said order, and has ever since refused
and neglected so To dOr
The second specification in; the charges
that at a meeting held thereafter on Septem-
b,r sth, 1891, the council ratified and confr fed
its former acts set forth In said first specifica-
ito, again appropriated the money, and aga I'm
ordered an order Simiarin all respects to the
first. to be issued; that this was done and the
new order was presented to the mayer on
September 10th for his signature, and that he
again refused to sign the order, well knowing
all the facts and without any sufficient en-
Use therefor ETC. as charged i'm the rstspec-
iication.
The evidence has been returned and we are
of the opinion that it will not sustain a con-
viction. AS held in State VS.. Common Cotrn-
Gil So Mimi. $780, removal for ''cau ,e'' must
be for legal cause" and the court on certiora,i
will examine the evidence, not for the pur-
pose of weighing it, but to ascertain whether
it furnished anp legal and substantial basis
tfls ri'e removes ~ We are of the opinion that
Isl Sl3st!< use, the evidence does not
Il. tsh 80 l,E BASIS. There is no evidence
p; sfSg ~ tslf psjscOnducnt on the part of the
r}S se ID Asa as may be inferred from
Ii as 4 pil.S ~ fused repeatedly to sign an
fsSsi. n t{ss a use stated in said charges.
z. - tle.5 so 90 7v-s presented to the
gsA $50 * u. s'5t "a, sfifsi y second
ssatySs. 49, =. ,,t,l,- ssfrce, tfa1a
.rr . = #. q - ~