Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1902-04-17
The MANDAMUS CASE
Kitzmeyer VS.. Davis Argued in
the Supreme Court
Yesterday

compel the Otdle ContAoAAVA w VIA"
a warrant in favor of George e. Kitz- L
never for $2621O was before the Su- a
preme Court yesterday II
The facts as presented before the 5
court showed that on the End of last l
October the clerk of the court applied :
to the State Board of Capitol Com |
missioners for the authority to puf- | !
chase two dozen chairs for the Su- I
preme Court room. 1t was refused by ]
the Board on the ground that there
was not sufficient money in the fund
to pay the same.
Later on the Court authorized its
Baliff to order the chairs. The chairs
were accordingly ordered FOR firm in
San Francisco but through Geo. T.
Kitzmeyer When the chairs came
the bill was allowed Icy a majority OF
the Board of Examiners, the Attorney
General and the Secretary Of State.
Before the bill reached the Control
iers office a protest was filed with the |
Controller by the Governor, who is |
chairman OF the State Board of Capt. |
toll Commissioners. against issuing the
warrant. The Controller declined to
issue the warrant or the grounds that
there was no money remaining in the
furniture fund, that the claim had not
been allowed or ordered by the Cap
itol Commissioners and that the Or
dering OF the furniture by the Su-
preme Court was by them an assamp-
ton of executive functions expressly
forbidden bv the Constitution.
The case was argued by Trenmor
Coffin for the plaintiff and Attorney
General Woodburn for the Controller
Frank Y. Stone, who is at the pres
ent time acting as attorney tOr Nj
Davis il connection with LEGAL bust
ness IN San Francisco expected to be
here and present the argument for the
Controller He was detained TWO days
however II ill.rcis while coming from
New York and vas unable 20 be pres
ent. Nj Woodburn. having audited
the claim as 4 member Of he State
Board q Examiners. was PLACED Il q
delicate position and expected other
counsel to present the case.
He stated in his argument that he
signed tie bill With the surposI.i3n
that there was sufficient money IL the
fund to meet the claim. Otherwise
lie wop..i act have signed it.
flr. Coffin opened his argument b!
citing the condition OF the courts il
the Roman Empire d few hundred
years before Christ and showed con
ciu5iveiy that the courts IN those
days had "sittings,'' and he also wal
able 10 produce some ancient book:
which showed fac SMILES OF courts il
session, all sitting down. The court
he cited all had sittings but 10 cour
he cited ever had any standing.
He avoided in his quoting of picture
any reference to the famous pictur
OF Christ Before Plate, where III
spectators, were all standing. Ais
overlooked tie fact that the chairs o.
dered were not judges chairs bu
spectators chairs.
The fact that the Courts in the day
OF julius Caesar had places to sit, b
advanced as an argument why tn
State Controller of Nevada should i:
sue warrants when the fund was e,
hausted.
He also held that under the law tn
Court was the supreme ruler OF tn
affairs OF State and had the inherer
right to furnish their own court roo
in suitable manner whether the Lee
islature appropriated money or not f.
the payment OF the same and that til
contingent and expense fund had owe
500 from which the money could /
paid.
Attorney General Woodburn than
ed the attorney for his lecture on a
cient history and regretted that he hs
overlooked the Sanhedren and tt
Acropolis at Athens. Joe Goodm:
had published work on the Biolog
of Central America which carried Il
reader back over $50, 900 years and ;
attempt was made to get it out OF Il
library and introduce it in eviden
but some one had borrowed it and
was not immediately ayaila ole. I
held that the statute expressly forba'
the payment OF any money or Wilit
there was not specific appropriate
That the Board of Capitol Commit
sioners had sole charge of all the c
pendi.ures of the State Capitol bull
ing.
That the Constitution of the Sta
prohibited the officials of one depa
ment from exercising the functions
any other branch of the government
He quoted in defense of his la
point decision in the 42d Louisial
where the Supreme Court in a simil
case laid down the law that one {
partment of government could n
usurp the functions of another branc
The case having been submit
with these arguments the Court q
journed.