Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1905-10-23
SUPREME COURT TAKES A Posi-.
ton that MAY MULCT CITY,.
Restraining Writ Denied, for the
Reason There Was Nothing TO
Restrain, as the Buildings Had
Been DESTROYED, Damage Suits
will Now be Instituted Against
the CITY.

In the supreme court yesterday, the
writ of mandamus upon Judge Irwin, to
show cause why he denied the right of
appeal to the Wheeler Bros. and Harsh.
ner Bros. was heard. Attorney Cross
appeared for the plaintiff, and j. G. Ho-
gan for Judge Irwin. The decision is
not calculated to occasion much JOY in
the breasts of the average taxpayer of the
city, who bids fair to pay for the hasty
destruction Of the two s. acks on q street.
While t e court denied the writ, it ex-
pressly states that it did so for the rea-
son that, the buildings being destroyed,
there was now nothing to restrain, but
strongly intimated that the action O.
Judge Irwin was error, AS well as that
Mayor Lindstrom and his officers were
subject to punishment for contempt of
that court in having proceeded with the
work Of destruction after its issuance of
the mandamus.
The following is the text OF the courts
decision:
STA rE OF WASHINGTON ex rel. \
N. u. WHEELER et al, RelatoIs,
Plaintiff,
MASON IRWIN, Judge OF the Su.
perior Court OF Chehalis County,
Respondent
PER CuRIAM.-
Original application for mandamus to
,y,pl In lou, - a.
deas bond on appeal.
In August, 1905, ,elators brought an
action in the superior court Of Chehalis
county to restrain the city of Aberdeen
from DESTROYING certain wooden buildings
porary restraining order was issued,
pending the trial of the cause in the court
below. At the final hearing the trial
court found against the plaintiffs, and
entered an order dissolving the restrain.
ing order Heretofore issued and dislnis-
sing the action Plaintiffs thereupon
gave notice OF appeal to this court, and
requested the trial court 10 fix the
amount of the supersedeas bond on
appeal. The trial court refused this re-
quest. Thereupon this application for
mandamus was filed in this court. A
show cause order was issued. Upon re.
turn to this order it appears that the city
of Aberdeen had destroyed the buildings
before the service of the show cause or
der, and that there is nothing now upon
| which the supersedeas may operate. Fer
this reason the writ is denied, without
costs to either party.
A great trouble has been experienced
y in the entire discussion of this shack
question, for the reason that the interests
OF but two parties, the shack owners and
the owners OF other property for rent have
been considered. The general public, un-
connected with either of those, appears
to have been lost sight Of, yet that public
will have to pay all damages that may
ultimately be awarded in the case.
1t is idle to argue upon the ethics Of
the case. That those people had signed
a contract and should have abided by it,.
They did not elect to do so, and it should
have been rmtorred BY ha7v. Suits will now
be instituted for damages, which will be
asked upon three grounds. The destruc'
tion of property for damage to business,
and for trespass upon their person, and,
should flaw be found i'm the fire limit
ordinance, or in the procedure in the in
junction case, the public, the men with
no interest one way or another in the
shacks, will be called upon to pay the
bill.