Bisbee daily review., 1907-10-23
WON'T TRY CASE OR LEI OTHERS
 TAKE II
City Attorney Merritt Refuses To Let StdckIer Act As AS- sociate Counsel In Case Against c. 0. White.

When the case of the City of Bis bee versus c. O. White, came up il Justice Hogan's court yesterday af- ternooIi, it was dismissed by Gity At torney Merritt, after an argument had taken place because Attorney E. G Strickler had been retained to as- sist in the prosecution. Attorney Cleary of the defense, objected to Strickler's representing the city and according to the best information Merritt refused to allow Strickler to act in spite of the fact that the mayor and members of the city council gave their consent
 The case against WLite was on the ground of defacing private property, by pasting stickers on the window of the store of one A. Le Roy of this city. Le Roy swore to a complaint charging White with the offense, ana the latter was arrested by Constable Twomey several days ago. The case was set Tor trial yesterday afternoon in Justice Hogan's court.
 White appeared in court with his attorney, W. B. Cleary and E. G.. Strickler appeared for the city. Mer- ritt was not on hand. Cleary inquired as to who was representing the city and Strickler answered that he was, whereupon Cleary entered an objec- ton, contending that Strickler had no right to- Strickler explained that he had the authorization of the mayor and members of the city council, al though this consent had not been giv en at a formal meeting. He said he was representing the tax payers of the city.
 An adjournment was taken until ? s'clock in order to allow time for Strickler to see Merritt and find out the position of the latter in the case. At the stated time the case was dis missed by the city attorney.
 When seen by Review represe tatiye last evening and asked con cerning the matter, Strickler said:
 T was retained by the taxpayers of the city to assist in the prosecution of this case and as is customary among attorneys. I called upon Mir. ! Merritt and asked If he had any ob- l lection to my acting as associate counsel. He stated that he had noth- l ing against me personally but that he did not care to let me act. The mayor and councilmen were seen and con. sented to my acting, so I went into court. It was not my desire to lead the prosecution. but simply to assist in any way 1 could. Counsel for the | defense objected to my prosecuting the case, and as the city attorney was not on hand it was dropped. I am familiar with the ordinance covering the matter and contend that the facts alleged, which can be proved, are ! 1 plain violation of the city ordinance 1 Why Mir. Merritt does not care tc | prosecute the case I do not know" | The city attorney could not be i reached last evening over the tele phone, but it was learned that V
 asked why he did not prosecute tn, case, he informed the inquirer that
 was running the city attorneys oft
 and was not taking dictatiop. The only reason which Merritt gave to tn, the justice court for dismissing ths case was, that he did not think 2 conviction could be secured.
 In view of the fact that the alIega
 tions set forth in the complaint ant sworn to by reputable citizen woult
 seem to come within the city ordi nance, there was great deal of crit cism of the city attorneys arbitrar, action yesterday. Some argued q
 if no conviction could be secure,
 when a person ueIace5 show vii
 dow with small poster anyone who
 desires might cover show window
 completely with anything be wanted
 and the owner of the establishment
 would have no recourse.
 I