The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1907-04-27
SYLLAbUSOF COURT
IN FAMOUS
CASE
Supreme Court Handed Down
Decision Affirming the
Lower Court.
CASE WAS BICKFoRD
VS.. AUDITOR FABRICK
Judge Templeton Sat on su-
preme Bench For Judge
Fisk.
CASE WAS BICKFORD
VS.. AUDITOR FABRICK

Inc full decision OF the supreme
court in the famous Ward county case
of G. L. Bickford vs.. ]. w. Fabrick,
mentioned in Fridays Evening Times,
affirming the decision of the lower
court. has been received. The case
was originally heard by Judge Fisk,
sitting by request, and was an appli-
cation by the state for a writ of man.
Janus against the auditor of Ward
county. The decision of the lower
court was in favor of the plaintiff and
in this decision which the supreme
court has just concurred.
Judge Templeton of this city sat on
the supreme court in place of Judge
Fisk who was disqualified on account
of having been trial judge.
Questions are Interesting.
The two questions involved in the
case are quite interesting.
Q) Was the relator Bickford the
superintendent of schools during the
years 1903 and 1904, and (2), If he
was is he entitled to the salary as
such Office during that period? The
record discloses that Mr.. Bickford was
elected and acted as superintendent
of schools of Ward county during the
years 1901 and 1902; that at the gen.
eral election held in November 1902,
Miss Flora J. Frost was elected to
that Office, and in due time filed with
the county auditor her official oath
and bond. as required by law, and
demanded of Bickford the delivery of
the Office and supplies of said county
superintendent of Ward county. This
demand was refused by Bickford and
neither the Office nor the supplies were
ever delivered to Miss Frost and she
never performed the duties of the
Office.
Prior to her qualification, Bickford
instituted in the district court of
Ward county statutory contest of
election against Miss Frost and in
November, 1903 it was adjudged that
Miss Frost, was not qualified elector
of Ward county, and in consequence
was not eligible to any Office and was
not entitled to a certificate of election,
and judgment was issued restrain
ing the county auditor of Ward county
from issuing a certificate of election
to her. Bickford carried on the funs-
lions of the Office during the years
1903 and 1904, despite the fact that
his elected term had expired. He
sued Ward county for his salary,
amounting to almost $4,000 and juig-
ment for this sum was given him.
Syllabus Of Court.
The syllabus of the court is as fol-
lows:
1. A mandamus proceeding is not
an action under sections GAL, 6742 and
6743, R. c. 1905, being special pro-
ceeding. Under section 1929, C. L. 9O5
only actions are triable de novo in the
supreme court and this does not con-
template the trial de novo of special
proceedings.
2. A statement of the same on ap-
peal in the mandamus proceeding
does not contain a specification of err
rOrs does not admit of review of
anything except the judgment roll.
3. Under the statute of this state
providing that the term of Office of
the county superintendent of schools
shall be two years commencing on the
first Monday in January, following his
election and until his successor is
elected and qualities a duly elected
and qualified and acting county SUI
perintendent of schools continues such
superintendent until his successor is
elected and qualities.
4. A county superintendent lawful
ly holding over after the expiration
of two years from his qualification as
superintendent, and continuing to per-
form the duties of the office, is enti-
titled to the compensation provided by
law for the incumbent of such Office.