Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1905-04-14
huadredths DOLLARS, for services ren-
dered, out Of revenue fund. '>@*.* 9 5zss
No. 7326. Attest, II J 4fzs = 4
r. e. HALL, .%s....
City Clerk.


Mayor. 49,
That the defendant, as mayor Of
the eaid city of Little Falls, without
just cause or excuse, refused to sign
or authenticate said order, and re-
turned the same to the said city clerk
unsigned, and ever since has and stiu
does refuse TO sign the same. a
Az conclusions of law, the court de- .
termines and decides that a per- T
emptory writ of mandamus ehoold
issue in this action, commanding the :
defendant, Chas E. Vasaly. as mayor
of the city Of Little Falls, immediate-
ly after the receipt of a copy of esid
writ of mandamus, t. sign in his
official capacity. as mayor, the or
der for two hundred fifty (250) dollars.
hereinbefore specified and referred to,
and to authenticate said order by
signing the same as is required by
law.
As conclusions of law the court fur
Their decides that the plaintiff is en-
titled to judgment against the defend
ant for his disbursements herein.
Let judgment be entered according
ly. By the court.
L. L. XrER,
District Judge.
Dated March 10th, 1905.
Note-This is a proceeding to COM
pei the mayor of the city of Little
Falls to sign certain order On the
treasurer of said city payable to the
/ relator.
1t appears from the evidence intro
duced upon the trial that said relator
was allowed by the city council the
sum of two hundred and fifty do:lsrs
for services rendered by him for said
city,. It is not claimed that there wan
any fraud in the transaction and it
appears from the undisputed evidence
in this case that the proceedings of
the council we're in all respects regu-
lar and legal and that the REALTORS
claim was a valid one against the city
and is unpaid. Bv authority Of the
council an order was drawn on the
city treasurer for the said sum allowed
by it in favor of the relator and coun-
tersigned by the clerk of said city,
but the respondent refused to sign the
same and hence this action.
The act thus required of said re-
spondent was ministerial in its ma
ture-neither judicial or discretion
ary-and it was therefore his duty to
authenticate said order by signing
the same, this being the only object
of requiring his signature.
He could not look beyond the rec.
ords of the city council and act upon
the statement of members of the
council when neither fraud or mis-
take is charged.
Perhaps he might at the proper time
have vetoed the resolution allowing
REALTORS claim. but it is too late for
him to do so now. Neither has this
court the right or power. upon the
evidence in this case, to disregard the
records of the city council or allow
them to be falsi6ed by the evidence of
members of the council in the manner
proposed.
1t may be that the relstor has re-
oeived money from the city that he is
not entitled to, but this Ia not shown
by the evidence.
If the money allowed to relator was
intended to apply on his salary, az
city attorney. as claimed by respond
ent's council, it is difficult to under.
stand why the city council did not say
so in It's resolution allowing the claim
and wiz the salary was afterwards
paid as the evidence showed it to have
been.
Even If defense was set up In the
respondents answer in this action
which I doubt, such defense is not
sustained by the evidence.
Respondents counsel in bis brief
has very skilfully presented his side
of the case but his argument is based
upon evidence that l do not consider
properly in the case. and for that
reason disregard it upon the grounds
hereinbefore stated.
L L. B.
Proceedings on the part of the
plaintiff are hereby stayed for period
! of thirty days from and after notice
to defendant of the fling of the fore
going order, and the defendant Is
allowed that time to serve case.
L. L. Baxter,
District Judge.
Dated March 80, 1905.
HOPE NO LITTLE FALLS GIRLS
ARE LIKE THIS.