The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-10-11
STATE SUPREME COURT
Action Of Judge Woody in the
County Seat Controversy.
,RiS DECISION APPROVED
nevisw OF the Case as II Came to the
oourt-rhe Motion to Quash Was
Properly 0ranted-Absencs
of Fraud.
special Dispatch to the Standard.

Helena. Oct. l0.-The supreme court
to-day approved the action of Judge
Woody In declining 10 interfere with
the proceedings of the county commits
sioners Of RavaIl county in ordering
that the question of the removal OF the
county seat from ~Stevensville TO Ham
: flton be submitted to the electors OF the
county At the coming election. Last
March a petition was presented to the
board OF county commissioners asking
that the county seat be changed from
stevensviIle to Hamilton and that an
election be ordered TO determine
whether such removal should be made.
When the boards action became known
Amos Buck. q citizen of Stevensville.
applied to Judge Woody for a writ OF
certiorari to review the boards pro-
ceedings. Buck supported his applica-
ton for the writ with an affidavit in
which he set forth that at the last pre-
vious election In Ravalli county 1.s75
votes were cast, while the petition bore
the signatures of 200 people. not ne
half of the qualified voters: that In act
ing on the petition and making the or
der the board refused to receive any
evidence showing or tending TO show
that the persons signing were. or were
not, electors: that no evidence was pre-
sented showing the number OF votes
cast At the last election or how many
OF the signers participated In that cleo
ton, and that before the board acted
he (Buck) appeared before the board
md Offered to present evidence Of the
disqualification a electors OF ava
county Of q large number OF the sign
ere Of said petition. which offer was by
said board OF county commissioners
then and there rejected"
Upon this showing Judge Woody is
sued the writ. Then the board moved
to have the writ quashed or nullihed
on the grounds. first. that lit does not
appear that Buck In the party bene-
f1cially Interested: second. that IL does
not appear that respondent (the board)
exercises any judicial functions In act
ing on the petition; thirdly. that IL does
not ppear hat respondent exceeded
its Jurisdiction In acting on the petition.
and. fourthly. that the AFFIDAVIT does
not state facts suficient to justify the
court in granting relief" Pending a
decision of the motion the body of the
petition. asking for the removal. was,
by the order OF the court. amended by
including the following:
We IA g gbal BtNttho
ers. whose names are hereto following.
continuously In this bound book. begin
ming on page one thereof. who are resi-
dents and inhabitants of the county of
Ravalh. In the state OF Montana, n
legel voters and qualified electors of
said county OF Ravalli. pray that the
county seat be removed from stevens
willie to Hamilton. and that an election
be held to determine whether such re-
moval must be made" Tn district
court then granted the motion to quash
the writ. From this action of the lower
court Buck appealed. Justice Pigott.
In an opinion covering several pages OF
legal foolscap. discusses h points
raised by respective counsel and the
reasons assigned by Buck for the issu-
ance OF the writ and those OF the county
commissioners for requesting Its nulli-
ication. m dlsposes OF each of the
contentious raised by Buck.
In disposing OF the claim that the
board refused to rear evidence as TO
whether the signers of the petition were
electors and testimony as TO the num-
Der of voters in the county. the court
says: 1T is not stated that any cleo
tor or indeed any person objected to
the petition nor hat n offer Of evil
dence was made. nor that the board
was not advised in respect of the num-
Der of votes cast at the last preceding
election. The afidavit also alleges that
before the petition was acted upon the
appellant CBuck) offered to present evil
dence to the effect that a large num-
Der of signers Of the petition were not
electors. but that respondent objected
to the offer. II evidence had been ad-
duced In accordance with the offer.
there In nothing to indicate that the re-
sulting proof would have adduced the
number of electors to less thar a ma
jority OF the votes last In 1896. Appel
liant did not offer to prove that the
eigners who were not electors were suf-
ficiently numerous to invalidate the pc
tition. Although appellant had oppor-
tunity to attack IL, analysis of the affi-
davit fails to disclose that any objec-
ton was made TO the petition while II
was pending before the board. The pc
tition recites that each signer Is a quail
iied elector OF Ravslli county. The
presentation Of such a petition, bearing
the requisite number OF names. was,
we think. in the absence OF objection
and OF fraud. sufficient 10 warrant the
board in ordering an election. or al
least sufficient to enable the court tc
say thai the board regularly pursued
It's authority In the premises. Whether
this action was founded upon strictly
legal. sufficient. or the best evidence, II
not for the court to decide on certiorari
Iht Cts A'N ~ Z, 80
hcient TO show nat the respondent
board has not regularly pursued It's au'
thority. and therefore h motion q
quash was properly granted on tn
third and fourth grounds stated here
in"
One other opinion was rendered by
the court to-day. IL was in the cas-
. Of John j. Gamblers We. William Lowry
ct al. an appeal from the district court
NJ silver Bow The suit was Instituted
IN Judge Lindsay's court for the breach
of the conditions OF a mining lease, alsS
for an Injunction restraining the de
PENDANTS from working the property in
volved until the suit had been decided
The court below refused the injunction
and Gamblers appealed. The lease IN
question stipulated that there should
be no ores stopped except at the 30o-foo
level and plaintiff claimed his claus
had been violated in that defendant
did stopping at the bottom OF a VIM
"A feet below the 20O-fOot level. Tn