The Coconino sun., 1906-10-06
BRIGHT ANGEL LITIGATION
Mir Cameron Gives Good Reason Why Q the County Employed Mir. Doe as ? 7 Attorney District Attorney ! Could Not Prosecute and
 Defend iu Same Case.


 Ashurst against the action of the Board of Supervisors in taking this Bright Angel Trail litigation out of my hands" :" Mir. Ashurst is evidently laboring under some mis- apprehension as to the actioY of the Board, As district attorney he has instituted an action which is now pending in the district court, enti- tied 'The Territory of Arizona. by Henry F, Ashurst. as district attor- ney of the County of Coconino, Territory of Arizona, on the veri- fled complaint of s. H. Fine, Plain tiff vs. L. L. Ferrall and the Coun- ty of Coconino of the Territory of Arizona.a body polite and corpor- ate. Defendants.
 The same authority which permits the district attorney to institute an action in the nature of quo war ranto. empowers him to dismiss it, if in his opinion it should not be maintained.
 Had the county been plaintiff in- stead of defendant in the action, it would have been in the power of the Board of Supervisors to dismiss it, but the county being defend ant it is obvious that the Board has neither the power to dismiss the action nor in any way control its prosecution. The Board is fully aware of this limitation upon its powers and has made no attempt to control MT. Ashurst iii his conduct of the prosecution; but Mir. P lson and myself. constituting majority of the Board, have felt that sue cessful prosecution of this case would deprive the county of rights which may. and ultimately should be of great value to it.
 We lave therefore passed reso- lution authorizing Edward M. Doe, Esq. to defend on behalf of the county, he having kindly agreed to do so without compensation. We have deemed his action necessary. because MT. Ashurst, havingI brought the suit originally against Ferrall, when the Court held that the county had rights involved which must necessarily be adjudica- ted in the action and was therefore necessary party defendant, and sustained demurrer interposed by Ferrall's attorneys because of a de- feet of parties. asked leave to amend his complaint and make the county defendant therein and failed to drop the action must be presumed to desire its successful termination in favor of the plaintiff, and there fore, although required by law to defend the county in all actions to which it is party, we feel that he is not in position to successfully or in good faith defend the county in the suit he is prosecuting against it.
 MT. Ashurst intimates that his purpose is to invali'ate the contract which was entered into for period of five years from it's date. between the county and Ferrall, but in his amended and last complaint he asks that the franchise be forfeited and that the county as we'll as Ferrall be permanently deprived of all right to ever collect tolls on the Bright Angel Toll Road.
 In other words. by his suit, he seeks to accomplish what the A. T. | & s. F. Ky. Co. has during the last three and a half years vainly at- tempted. and the fact that he has prepared none of the pleadings and failed t0 open his mouth in court in connection with this case no more relieves him from the responsibility