Putnam patriot., 1908-06-19
Superior Court.
JUDGE RoRABAcK's DBrIsIoS IN THE
 MANDATES CASE.


 In the case of Chas. E. Searls, State
 Attorney. ys. Huber D. Card, Prosecu- ting Attorney of the city of Putnam, memorandum upon motion to quash.
 Superior Court, windham County, June l2, Iaas.
 The respondent is the Prosecuting Attorney for the city of Putnam, and ss such il is his duty to diligently in- quire after and make due presentment of all claims and misdemeanors com. mitted within the jurisdiction of the City Court Of said Putnam.
 It is alleged in the petition for a man. damus now pending before this court:
 "On Sunday, May 10th, lsos, suntiry persons at and within the limits of the city of Putnam openly and notoriously Kept open certain shops and exposed certain personal property for sale at and within the limits of the said city of Putnam on said Sunday, between the hours of F o'clock Saturday night and l2 o'clock of said Sunday night, and so committed crimes and misde- meanors in violation of the provisions of section 1889 of the general statutes of the State, and said City Court of Putnam had jurisdiction and cogni- zanee and could lawfully act in all of said matters,
 On the 18th day of May, l9os, Frank lin W. Perry and Edgar NJ Warner, citizens of said city of Putnam, made complaint and furnished full informa- ton to said Card, as such Prosecuting Attorney, that George Peterson, of said city of Putnam, had, on Sunday, May 10th, 1908, between the hours of F o'clock Saturday night and 12 o'clock on said Sunday night, violated the pro- visions of section 1889 of the general statutes of this State, in that said George Peterson had at and within the limits Of the city of Putnam kept open his shop therein, and therein exposed for sale certain goods, wares and mer- chandise.
 Said Card, as such Prosecuting Attor- ney, on May 18th, 1908, had full know ledge that said crimes and misdemean- ors, violations of the provisions of sec ton 1889 of the general statutes of this State, had been committed at and with in the limits of said city of Putnam, as set forth in paragraphs , and |, and that il was his duty, as such Pfosecut- ing Attorney, to make due present. ment and complaint to said City Court of the aforesaid crimes and mi>demean- ors, violations of the provisions of sec ton 1869 of the general statues of this State.
 On May 18th, 1908, said Card, unlaw fully and wilfully refused to perform his duties as such Prosecuting Attor- ney, as set forth in paragraph ,, diIi- gently to inquire after and make due of complaint 10 said City Court of the city of Putnam of the crimes and misdemeanors set forth in paragraphs , and I.
 The respondent appears in court and moves 10 quash the writ.
 The motion to quash sets forth the reasons why the petition should be dis in four different paragraphs, yet for the purpose of this case il seems that all the grounds alleged for dismis- sal may be fully disposed of by eonSid- ering the allegation of paragraph of .he motion. wieh is as follows:
 ,. It fully appears in said writ that The respondent is the Prosecuting At Iorney of the city of Putnam, duly ap- pointed and qualified, and that in re- using to institute the proceedings by said application sought To be enforced he was and is in the exercise of the of- icial duties oi his said office, involving he exercise of his official judgment and discretion.
 The petition now under eonsidera- ion hardly sustains the contention of he respondent that it appears in said writ, that in refusing 10 institute the complained -of he was in- he exercise of official duties of his office which involved his official judgment and discretion.
 The substance of the charges set forth n the application is that the respond mt is public officer whose duty it is % prosecute all crimes and misdemean- DTS which come with the jurisdiction of he court of which he is prosecutor. That certain crimes and misdemeanors nave been committed within his juris- fiction which it was his duty to prose- .cute, and that with full Knowledge and information of all these facts he and wilfully refused to per form his duty.
 The motion to quash admits the ale zations of the petition (which are we'll pleaded) to be true, and this inquiry is simply 10 determine whether the peti- ion is sufficient in law.
 It does not appear that the manda- mus is asked for 10 control the discre- ion of the res pendent, but 1t is distinct y alleged, and fully appears, that he refuses to exercise his discretion, or act ai all where il is duty to do se,.
 In what cases writ of maadamus Is warranted il is moi always easy to de- While fl shc4id mol ise issued to control the discretion Of court pr public officer, yet the discretion is moi unlimited. and if it be exercised ar- DiirariIy. CT not exercised al all, with injustice, courts will commend .t d..l. l....ra.isE.