Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-12-08
CITY TRUSTEES
EXPLAIN DELAY
PUT IN THEIR ANSWER TO
WRIT OF MANDATE
DEMURRER AT ONCE oVERRULED
BY COURT OF APPEALS
Main Reliance Is on Uncertainty as to
Easterly Boundary Line and
Case Is Postponed
One Week

SAN PEDRO, Dec IA number of
citizens went to Los Angeles this
morning to see how City Attorney
Henry Stieglitz would excuse the fail
ure of the city trustees to comply with
the wishes of the people, the state law
and the mandate of the district court
of appeals of the Second district OF
California.
When the case of the alternative writ
of mandate, which was issued out OF
this court November %, requiring the
trustees either to call the election or
show cause today why they had not
done so, was called this morning the
city attorney was there, but it was
Judge ]. w. Mckinley who appeared
for the trustees. Attorney Frank Karr,
another Southern Pacific attorney, was
in the court room, but evidently only
as a spectator
Attorneys H. NJ Barstow and Milton
K. Young appeared for the complain
ants, John A. Anderson and Lewis Han
sen, and were Immediately served with
copies of the demurrer which Judge
Mckinley filed with the court. Mr..
Mckinley attempted to show that the
trustees had not had time enough to
call the election, that it was apparent
that 1t was the intention of the petit
TONERS to wipe out piecemeal the city
of San Pedro that the case at bar was
parallel with the case of WiedWald VS..
Dodson, and that the public impor-
lance" of the case did not justify 1t
being taken from the superior courts
and brought before the court of APP
peals.
Judge Barstow replied to the de-
murrer, taking up each point of the
Southern Pacific attorney in reverse
order and arguing that the fact of the
mandate being issued by the court of
appeals was evidence enough that it
was in the proper court; that the
Wiedwald VS.. Dodson case was not
parallel, and that the territory to be
excluded under these proceedings COM
prised only one-third of the population
and one-fourth of the area; that twenty
days had elapsed since the petition
was presented to the trustees, and
that no report had been made as to
progress in checking the names or
taking steps to call the election.
The three justices, Allen, Shaw and
Taggart, retired for a few moments,
and upon their return after delibera-
ton oVerruled the demurrer.
Judge Mckinley then presented
lengthy answer to the writ of mandate
on behalf of his clients, in which he
denied, first, that $50 qualified voters
had signed the petition; second, that
there were no public buildings in the
a public building, city wharves and
many thousand feet of wharves and
water front, and third, that the east
erly boundary line was uncertain in
that Long Beach and San Pedro both
claimed jurisdiction of East San Pedro
and Terminal Island, and the easterly
boundary line as mentioned in the pc
tition was not clear.
To this answer Judge Barstow asked
that a weeks time be given counsel in
order that the merits of the answer
be looked into and the boundary OBJ
lection settled. This met the approval
of the court and the case was continued
until next Monday
The defense as set up by the trus-
tees was looked for and no points were
presented which had not been antici-
pated. The question of the eastern
boundary line of the city was supposed
to be the strong card of the opposition,
and probably no one was better quail
fed to play it than was Judge McKin-
ley who has been looking out for San
Pedro's welfare in the Long Beach
controversy.
The people here are anxious to have
the matter of the election settled, but
the petitioners are assured that the
matter will be settled next Monday
and the trustees be compelled to ac-
cede to the will of the great majority.