Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1910-03-03
RULING IS SUSTAINED
Supreme Court Confirmed Decision
Of Judge Searl
BOARD WILL NOT REC0NVENE
Report of Committee Of Five From Board OF
Supervisors Receive Sanction OF Courts

Report of Committee Of Five From Board OF
Supervisors Receive Sanction Of Courts
The petition to the board of super
visors last anuarv praving that the
question of local option be submitted
to a vote of the people at the coming
spring election was as will be remem-
bered turned down bv the board of
supervisors on the ground that the
sffidavits of posting had not been
properly complied with. as result
of which there we're not enough names
legally attached to the petition to
authorize the calling of the election
prayed for. Mandamus proceedings
were started bv ATTORNEYS Stone &
Watson of the county seat town. and
Judge Scarf before whom the proceed
ings were held denied the writ and the
request was then taken to the supreme
court. which BODY in a decision filed
February %. sustained the action of
the board of supervisors and endorsed
the decision of Judge Searl. The
supreme courts opinion was as
follows:
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
Herbert j. Crawford. and
John Watson.
Relators and Appellant.
Filed Feb. 90, 1910
The board of Supervisors
of The County of Gratiot.
Respondents and Appellee
Before Ostrander, Moore. Brooke,
Blair and Stone il. Ostrander.
Certain petitions presented under
provisions of act 207. public acts of
1889. as amended bv act 1873, public
scis of 1899, were presented to the
board of supervisors of Gratiot county,
considered and disposed of by adoption
by vote of u TO e. of the following
committee report:
The special committee appointed
at this session on the petition for local
option election, reported through
Supervisor Elv. and which Supervisor
Ely moved that the report he recorded
accepted. as adopted and placed upon
the records as the finding of this board
To the Honorable Board of Super
visors for Gratiot county. Michigan.
Gentlemen: Your committee to
whom was referred the matter of the
local otption petition. so-called, have
thoroughly examined and considered
the same, and respectfully report
thereon as follows:
lst There are not the requisite
number of petitioners upon legally
authenticated petitions to authorize
this board to submit the question to
the electors of this county; and that
the submission of the local option
question has not been prayed for by
the requisite number of electors.
2nd We therefore recommend that
the PRAYER of the petitioners be denied
All of which is respectfully SUBJ
mitted -
Thereupon certain of the Uetitior ors
applied to the circuit court of Gratiot
ounsy for writ of mandamus to com
pei the board, which. in the mean time
had adjourned. to reconvene and by
resolution and order submit to the
electors of the county the question
r
and the liquor traffic should he prohi-
bited in the county. There was an
answer made bv the chairman of the
board. a hearing. and denial of the
writ Plaintiffs in certiorara. who
were relators below present three
matters for our consideration. Thew
are. first. the answer or return Of the
respondent sufficient to Justify the
ruling that the facts therein stated
must he taken to be true. no issues
having teen framed Is the action
of the board-its dstermination-fina
and not reviewahle nv the court {!
Third does the statute, Comp Laws.
Ssection 54la. require the atfidsvits
posting. etc. to be made alter the
expiration of ten days after the post
ing was donel
The first question does not become
important because u made TO appear
bv 'he petition or maEdamus and the
answer that the action of the hoard
was warranted
The second question is disnosed OF
bv Clifford VS. Supervisors of Van
BIren COUNTY, lately decided. ) q
also Keefer W. Board of Supervisors
OF Hillsdale county. 109 Mich. .645
The third question involves the an
plication and the construction of