Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-04-20


business is as much dependent upon
the election Of its boards and officers
as upon the action OF the Council in
other matters, it is just as important
that such elections should be held as
that other. business should receive at
tention. And every reason which a
be urged in favor of the justice and
wisdom of the rule compelling atten-
dance of members, when applied to
meetings of the separate branches
can be urged with equal force in favor
Of applying the rule to joint sessions.
4 see no reason therefore after a
quorum has been secured in each
branch by the enforcement Of the rule
why it may not be used to secure a
quorum in joint session.
The courts generally refuse to per-
NIT the minority to obstruct the trans
teton of business by the majority Oh
any body. The following authorities,
though not bearing upon the exact
question of this case, illustrate the
proposition:
Dillon Munic. Corp. (4th Ed Sec.
248, Note 2. Elk parte Humphrey, 10
Wend. IN. " 6f2. People VS.. White
0AoCo, 90 CAO. OCt. DUR Vs. lIoAo-
com, 20 N. H. 2l3. Kimball VS.. Mar
shall, A N. H. 465. Launtz VS.. People,
113 III. 1877.
AS to the Bonds.
AS to the bond and qualification OF
respondents, the return urges that the
bond is proper in form and sufficient
in law. and that the Second Branch OF
Council alone has power to pass upon
and approve it. l do not think the,
contention of respondents that such
bonds are not to oe submitted to the
First Branch of Council and approved
by them is sound. But l do not believe
it important to give the reason for this
view, for, although the contention OF
the petitioners may be right, it cannot
affect the final judgment in this case
If respondents were actually elected.
1t clearly appears from both the writ
and return that there is no objection to
the form or sufnciency OF the bond, but
the objection urged in the First Branch,
as shown by the resolution adopted on
March 18th, was that the person giving
the bond had not been legally elected.
Ii, therefore, the election OF the re-
~spOndents was lawful they have the
right to have their bond approved by
a proper proceeding for that purpose.
This Deing true, the court will not
grant a mandamus compelling respond
ents to give up their ONCE because their
bond has not been approved when it
would at the instance of respondents
compel the First Branch to approve it.
The mandate OF a court OF justice
should never be invoked to an II that
is obviously useless. Amory VS.. JUS
tees, 2 V. Cas-. SIS. State VS.. County
Court, 80 S. E. $50. Stacy VS.. Ham
mond, 20 S. E. II.
Finally it is urged by compliments
that the Il in which respondents
obtained possession OF the office O
and books Of the Board of Public
Works was unlawful, and that the re-
turn shows ne facts which justify their
acts in that respect.
Police Criticized.
1t is true that the conduct of the
police officers in taking possession OF
the Office room in the in which
they did was without authority OF law
and entirely u~nwarranted. Such con-
duct is the more to be deplored because
the police are supposed to be employed
for the preservation OF the peace, and
not to lend themselves TO further the
violent plants of either OF two contend
ing factions. 1t is not within the prov
ince of the chief of police or his depN
ties to decide Who is entitled to hold
Office ana then by force carry out that
decision. There are lawful remedies
1 @-I 49, 8. ~N-- ~ At-.
law ought never to employ unlawful
methods, however strong may be their
conviction as to the rights of the per-
sons to whom they lend their aid.
But here again it is necessary fol- us
to remember that the question in
Volved in this proceeding is the title
to the offices claimed by the complain
ants. The court cannot in this case re-
view all the proceedings, correct all of
the Irregularities n cure all the In
juries that may have occurred from
sthe beginning to the end of this strug-
gle. Although the respondents have
secured possession Of the Office property
by unlawful means, the court will not,
for that reason alone, compel them to
restore it to compliments. For if it
should appear that respondents were
elected as members of the Board they
would then be entitled to possession of
its Office property; and a writ OF man
damus will not be issued compelling
respondents to turn over the property
to petitioners to be by them again
turned owe to respondents. This
would be doing a useless thing, and The
rule hereinbefore referred to, that the
mandate of a court should never be
invoked to an end that is obviously
useless, applies The demurrer to the
return is overruled.
rCyrx. va rrur NJ nav.