Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1909-12-16
NO INJUNCTION
,Idpe Steele So Decides in the
Nimms' Case.
|N|MMg CARRIES CASE UP
ia But Beginning of Thorough
Test of Local Option Law

Attorney C. L. Mcdonald, who
represents the interests of the plaintiff
in the action wherein Ray Nimms, Of
Cottonwood, is seeking to secure a
writ of mandate restraining the off.
cials of Idaho county from closing his
saloon business under the authority Of
the recent local option election, Fri.
day received the decision from Judge
Z. G. Steele wherein the writ is de-
MED.
In this action the plaintiff contend
ed the election was void because the
Instructions of the law had not been
carried out relative to publishing the
notices of election. The local option
law provides that the general election
laws shall prevail as to the manner of
submitting questions to the voters Of
the county and under the provisions
Of the general election laws it is stated
the questions to be submitted shall be
published at least twice in newspaper
Of general circulation in the county
and at least twenty days before the
time of holding the election. While
these Instructions had not been speci-
fcally carried out Judge Steele held
that the newspapers of Idaho county
had given the question the necessary
publicity.
The record for an appeal to the su-
preme court is now under the process
Of preparation and the case will be
submitted in Boise between December
20 and Is. In the district court, the
question of publishing the notice was
given considerable stress but in the
appeal to the supreme court every
question will be raised to test to the
fullest extent the legality of the local
option law.
The following is the text of the de-
clslon rendered by District Judge
Steele:
"ln this action the plaintiff Nimms
seeks an injunction against the defen-
dants as officials of Idaho county
against the said officials interfering
with the conducting of his retail liquor
business in the town of Cottonwood,
Idaho, it being shown that local op-
ton election was held, and that the
time prescribed in the statute after
the holding of such election has ar
rived at which all saloons must be
closed.
The parties in this case have enter
ed into stipulation that on account
Oh the conditions existing the matter
may be heard upon appeal by the su-
preme court at Boise, instead of wait
ing Tor the term at Lewiston in March
ooth parties appearing to desire an
eariy decision Of the supreme court.
MANY of the questions in this case
were before me in an appeal from the
ao1lon OF the board of commissioners
u Idaho county in ordering the elec-
'ion' | shall notice only the material
question raised, and give my views
.nefeon' without much argument. It
argued that the order of the board
|ofdefing the election does not state
sua' each petitioner signed his own
name. The order does state, however
a'al an affidavit has been made show
Jug that each person signed his name,
as required by law.
lhe court feels that this is suffi-
e,enl, the authorities holding that the
dues'lon to be determined from the
o.aer .. OF the board in SO far as the
pe.l'lon is concerned, is whether a
al pllopef petition was filed. 1t is urged
''o .nat the affidavit of the electors
nut IN proper form in that it fails to
SnoN d. That the person making the affi-
|sa,s ads'. is freeholder. The order it.
|sta. a' ls made part of the agreed
s@ OF facts and shows that the
aai's |s,..l We're freeholders, and the
|sd d.u'e says that the board must con-
tba.' ael The affidavit proof of the facts
ther e,eln stated. 1t doesn't say that
AZ s = may consider them as evidence of
~ sue laet but the statute is SO worded
fact make the atfidavits proof of the
bola: u lastly urged that no notice OF
law lu,ng nna the election, as required by
ths, was y. given. The statute provides
In Gu. sne notice, shall be the same as
suhm hHeial elections, and as upon the
,,no, onisslon of questions to be voted