The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-10-13
JUDGE WOODY REVERSED
1avalli County Seat Fight In the
Supreme Court
THE CAUSE is REMANDeD
n Opinion II on the Appeal From
Judge Wcody's Ruling on Buckle
Application for an Injunc-
tton-A New Trial.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena. Oct. 12.-The Ravslla county
seat fight had another inning in the
supreme court to-day. when the high
est tribunal in the state was called
upon to pass upon a second legal OBJ
struction raised by the opponents OF
the proposed election. Monday the SUI
preme court disposed of the certiorari
proceedings instituted by Amo Buck
OF ot~evensviIie. In which he sought to
Ave the action of the commissioners
In ordering the election reviewed. To-
day the court passed upon IN appeal
from Judge woody's ruling in refusing
one Henry Buck an Injunction re-
straining County Clerk James T.. Fitz-
gerald from preparing the official ballot
for the coming election so as to include
therein the question Of the removal OF
the county seat. The appeal was pre-
scented yesterday on briefs. and in or
der to preserve the rights of the par
ties the court agreed this afternoon on
Der curtain reversing the lower court
and remanding the case.
When the complaint In Bucks appli-
cation for an Injunction was filed in the
lower court the defendant, Fitzgerald,
attacked IL by demurrer. 1t was in
sustaining this demurrer that Judge
Woody refused the injunction. The
supreme court In passing upon the APP
peal considers four propositions that
were presented In the complaint and
demurrer. The FIRST was that the COM
plant did not show that the plaintiff
was . person whose interests were dis
tinguishable from those OF the mass
Of the residents of Ravalli county. and
therefore he had nc standing. The SUI
preme court holds, however. as In the
case decided Monday. that the COM
plant 10 suficient In that regard. The
second point commented upon is the
claim Of Buck hat Watts. Lucas and
Williams. the county commissioners
who ordered the election. were not COM
m~issioners "or had any legal or just
claim to act. or attempt TO act In the
capacity Of county commissioners. and
had no right or authority to perform
any act as such: that three other per-
sons were then and there the county
commissioner and had duly qualified
as euch and had assumed the duties
thereof" that acting as the board they
declined TO hear evidence tending To
show that q number of those signing
the petition were not electors: that no
evidence was heard as to the number
Of votes cast at the previous election
and that Watts. Lucas and Williams
made a pretended order for the election
Naa . th'a ~ NV WV
dant set up that these allegations were
ambiguous. unintelligible and uncertain
since Buck did not establish whether
he intended to show that the commits
sioners were neither de jure nor de
facto or that as officers de facto they
wrongfully made the order complained
of-in other words that the two posi-
tons cannot stand together.
III the order was not the act Of the
board of commissioners de jure or de
fecto, II was void" says the court.
IF. In the opinion OF the plaintiff. IL
was for the other reason likewise of
no effect, the statement OF facts upon
which that reason Is based does not in
1ect the element OF ambiguity or un-
certainty In the averments. nor render
them unintelligible. and this is mani
fest whether the statements OF facts
be SUFFICIENT or not TO show the defect
In or nullity Of the order"
The third point considered Is that the
complaint does not state facts sufficient
TO constitute a cause Of action. and the
court holds as IL did Monday hat they
are insufficient. Then follows that por-
ton OF the opinion upon which the re-
versal chiefly lies and which must first
be tried In the lower court: THE
charge that the persons making the
supposed order were not commission
ers de Jure In directly made. and while
u Hlot Vt Couttotu AndN tnt attr VI
de facto officers are valid inc hat
persons holding over from their terms
and publicly continuing TO exercise the
duties and functions OF their former
positions are officers de facto. we hin
the allegations of the complaint. rea-
sonably interpreted. are TO the effect
that Watts, Lucas and Williams were
mere usurpers. The facts stated fairly
import that the order was mad by
men who were neither de jure nor de
facto commissioners. In which alone
is lodged the power attempted to be
exercised by Watts and his two asso-
ciates. II II can be proved that they
were not commissioners de facto or de
jurs at the time. the order Is of course
void" The fourth point passed upon
WAS Of minor importance.
The question of the status OF the
commissioner at the time Of making
the order can probably be tried In the
lower court and that case again re-
ferred 10 the supreme court for final
adjudication in time for the county
clerk to certify the proposed election
upon the proposed ballot. in the event
Of q favorable decision.