Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1906-10-31

PER CURTAIN In motion sub
mitted with the case, the defendant
asks that the petition for writ of
certiorari be dismissed and that the
writ be quashed, but in the main
the grounds urged in the motion are
such as may be considered in passing
upon the merits of the case. involv-
ing the legality of defendant action
in making the portion of the order
which re strains the county of Winnie
shiek and its Board of Supervisorsand
Auditor from using the voting ma
chimes referred TO in the action of the
Board at the November election. 1t
is urged, however, that the plaintiffs
in this action having subsequently
appeared in the Injunction suit as de-
PENDANTS, filed an answer therein, and
otherwise raised issues of law and
fact, have plain, speedy and ade-
quate remedy by appeal. With refel-
ence to the filing of the subsequent
pleadings in the injunction suit, TO
which reference is made III the motion
to dismiss the petition and quash the
writ, it, is sufficient to saw, that
whatever may have been the effect of
such action on the part of the defend
ant in the injunction suit, the facts
do not appear by the return. nor i'll
any other manner, such as would en-
able us to take notice of them, and
therefore they need not be considered.
But, even if they were to be consider
ed, we cannot see that they would
effect the present proceedings. for the
injunction suit was still pending, and
the portion of the order, restraining
the county and its Board of Super
visors and Auditors from carrying out
the contract with the Voting Machine
Co.. by accepting the machines and
paying therefor under the terms or the
alleged contract was still in force.
The Voting Machine Company was
still in court for proper purpose. re-
gardless of the validity of that portion
of the restraining order questioned III
| this proceeding. AS to the ground or
| the motion involving the claim that
the plaintiffs can not maintain tins
certiorari proceeding, because they
have plain, speedy and adequate
remedy by appeal from the ocder'
granting the temporary injunction,
it is enough to say briefly, that in
ouf Judgment. the right to appeal
does not preclude plaintiffs from
questioning the validity of the por-
tion of the order complained OF on
the ground that it was made i'll eX-
cess of jurisdiction and is therefore
void and should be annulled. lt Is
provided in Code Section 4l54 that
"The writ of certiorari may be grant
ell when authorized by law, and in all
eases where an inferior tribunal.
board or officer exercising judicial
functions is alleged to have exceeded
its proper jurisdiction, or is otherwise
acting illegally, and there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
"It is contended in behalf of plaintiff
that "other plain, speedy and ade-
quate remedy" is only "a limitation OF
the power to issue the writ where the
: tribunal exercising judicial functions
: is alleged to be otherwise acting
illegally" and that it has no applica
tion to u case where an inferior tri.
bunal is alleged "to have exceeded it,
proper jurisdiction. But we thinl
that the correctness of this view neet
: not be passed upon, in view of ou
conclusion that the remedy by appea
is not such plain. speedy and adequate
remedy as to prelude the right to tes
: the validity of the order in questi ON
! as against the complaint that it W a
h| Continued ON Page 4.