Lewiston evening teller. [volume] (Lewiston, Idaho) 1903-1911, 1907-09-28
CuLDESAC
WINS DECISION
Iuage Steele Denies Writ
,,f Mandate in Con
we'll Case.

nistrict Judge SIeeiS h1ro lOAuSfc0 q
aoc,s,on denying all prohibition in the
oo.e and dismisding the proceedings dn
~ ease of Richard Conwell VS.. che
village of Culdesac
.aJn this case the petitioner Conwell,
nravs for writ of prohibition against
.,e village of Culdesac ITO prevent the
.rrstees removing him from the Office
of marshal.
~rn -Ybe controversy apo1It this mat
.er this court heard petition filed fer
writ of mandate for the purpose Of
rastoring the said Conwen to Office,
ond ordered that a writ of mandate
issue and that he be SO restored, for
,he reason that he had been removed
from Office without any notice to him
of the proceedings for his removal.
"The petitioner in this case shows
that he was restored to Office and that
the trustees then proceeded to formu-
late charges against him for miscon-
duct In Office and served him with
notice and upon a certain day the
board Of trustees for the village of
Culdesac would examine the charges,
and citing him TO apear on the date
fixed and answer the same. The petit
TONER then filed mis- petition for writ
of PROHIBITION, asking that the board
be prohibited from passing mpon the
charges or removing him from office.
On the day before the board was to
meet, the eattorney for the petitioner
appeared before the court and upon
the petition the court ordered the trus-'l
tees to appear before 1t on the 18th of
September and show cause why the
writ of prohibition should not issue, if
any cause existed.
q0n the date fixed the petitioner, by
his attorney, and the village, by its at
torney. appeared before the court and
argued the cause and afterward the
attorney for the petitioner referred the
court in writing to several authorities.
which he contended sustained his
views
This court has carefully examined
all the authorities produced. and has
considered all the questions raised by
the attorneys. and it believes that
village has a right, under the police
power given to such bodies, to remove
a marshal upon proper notice without
waiting for court to convene grand
jury in order that such body make an
accusation against such officer
The one contention made by the pc
dtioher Is that because the statute
provides that all officials, including the
cr1clals of municipal corporations, I
may be removed from once through /
me method provided by statute. name
" that Hpon an accusation teing made !
Dy grand jury the charges may be !
ana the accusation shall be tried by
the court and that therefore this REM
edy is exclusive and that the village !
trustees have no power TO remove a
marshal themselves, The court cannot
agree with thfs position. Mr.. Dillon. |
IN MS treaties upon municipal corpo-
la'Ions states II to be a right of trus-
ices OF such bodies to remove munich |
pal officers upon proper notice, re- /
sardless of whether there Is any stat
ute giving them the power Of removal;
ana other authorities cited to the court ,
snow that this is right inherent in |
eucn bodies and that the statute which
ne petitioner has called attention to !
was never intended to apply to officers
in this class.
II 1t were otherwise, then ali of the
villages of this state, after having
Vnce appointed village marshal,
"ouiu be utterly powerless to remove
MN from office otherwise than by
waiting for grand jury to present an
accusation and would also have to
:, sait until these charges were tried by
'ne court; and in the meantime the
would be drawing a salary
1iu the village trustees would Be
po"eriess to appoint his successor. In
O.her words they once having appoint
~ |, marshal, then such ofFlcer would
Aase .,' 1t in his power to control the
image :, for months in so far as the du-
uss Oh his office are concerned, and the
,'i'age trustees. in whom the power
{ supposed to vest to control and
! s'a'age the affairs Of the city would
!. !. poWerless to properly control some
'ne Guys most important matters"