The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-07-17
SUPREME COURT DECISION

-O-C-
SUPREME COURT DECISION
y The Supreme Court Of the State Of
Nevada
The State Of Nevada Ex Rel
George Bachelor, Plaintiff and Re. !!
M. A. Murphy, District Judge Of the !
First Judicial District Of the State Of
Nevada.
Defendant and Respondent. !
Tbs is proceeding in Mandamus
TO compel the respondent as Judge OF
the First Judicial District Court to
proceed TO hear and determine the
case OF George Bachelor. Plaintiff "
Rose Ann Bachelor. Defendant al.
legged to be pending in said District
| Court.
In his petition relator among other
things alleges:
I mat he commenced his action tor
divorce On the 23rd day OF February
:, \. D. 1868; that on the 10Th. day OF
March 1908 the defendant appeared III
the action through her attorneys.
Messers Cur1er and klng. they fling
/ an answer to the complaint: that on
the 4th day OF December 1905 the
respondent set the case for trial be-
fore jury on the 2lst day of De
cem5er l9ny. that On the said 2lst day
OF December lsD3. plaintiffs attorney
III said case, c. T. Mack ESQ. ap-
peared and requested the respondent
TO proceed with the trial OF the case:
that respondent refused to do so CIV
refUS ng as follows:
The said defendant is insane and
c.nlned in the Asylum for Menta.
diseases at Reno Nevada and tha-
this reiator. through his. attorney. the
said c. E. Mack. thereupon made a
demand upon the said respondent to
roceeu with the trial OF said action
bat that the said respondent then and
there refused and does now refuse to
proceed with the trial thereon and
will not proceed to the trial OF SAID
action. without an order. Of this Court
: compelling him SO 10 do.
The respondents refusal to proceed
. with the trial on the case is based
On the fact of the defendants IN
sanity. The complaint however alleged
thai the acts constituting the cause
tine Defendant We're committed by the
defendant before the insanity oc
Cured
Under these circumstances. / thinl
the fact OF the insanity of the de
iehdd2t was not sufficient to justify
The respondent in his refusal to pro
cecil with the trial of the case
II his return or answer to the
II ~
sets up other matters in justification
OF his refusal to proceed with the
trial 10 Wit doubt whether or no,
he summons in the action had beef
properly served. the absence OF the de
felllidnts attorneys. etc.
AS the case stands on the petition
and answer these matters canno
avail him under his admissions thai
he would never try the case while de
feIGant was insane. He did not deny
or answer the allegations in the
petition that on account of the III
sanity OF the defendant he would moi
even in future try the case. The al
legation stands admitted by the fact
/ of IS being denied.
The other matters alleged in the
answer to the petition might perhap:
nave JuStlned the respondent IN his
refusal to proceed with the trial al
the. time mentioned. But if suci
were the case he should nave signi
e fed to Counsel his Willingness ane
: intention to proceed VIE the tria
at the proper lime: and also have
let them know wherein he deemed
their proceedings irregular and insult
e fclent so tho they cOulu nave amend
i ed and corrected them and at some
time gotten q trial OF the case.
Therefore without passing on The
questions Of the sufficiency of the
: service of summons in the case or any
of the other matters stated in the
answer OF respondent except the
l. single one of the Sufficiency CT de
e PENDANTS insanity as a bar to pro
:. ceeding with the orderly hearing anC
determination OF the case. ii is order
ed that the mandate OF this court is
sue 10 the respondent that he proceed
with tle hearing and determination
e of the case, of course. first satisfying
S himself upon all questions OF service
q OF summons. guardianship and juris
dictiOn.
= FITZGERALD. E. J
> we concur
l. TALBOT, j.