The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1910-11-03
/ | COURT. U.| R|:.|7. 4.
.5lISIIAnN|SIli JUDGE
I|lEEIl'S'D|EC|S|ON
THE SUPREME COURT OF AP.
PEALsj REFUSED AN APPEAL IN
STElE INJUNCTION cAsE-THEI
DECISION OF JUDGE NEELY is
! coNFi FiRM EO-lNJUNcTIoN DIS.
< SOLVED.
THE .MANDMUs CASE ARGUED
Counsel for Plaintiffs In Injunction
st Case and r respondents In Mandamus
IA Case Adopt Fllihusterins Methods
No Jury 'rrial; In Mandamus Case.

81 Late last, night Clerk Matthews,
55ofsthe West Virginia Supreme Court,
plioned Judge Howard N. Ogden, of
this city. that the court had refused to
grant9the appeal prayed for by Attor-
Sneys Charles A. Goodwin, representing
5sSenators McD Dermott. The appeal was
from the lecision of Special Judge
Nicely, of the Circuit Court dissolv-
ling the Injunction granted by Judge
Holt Restraining the ballot commits
sioners from placing the ticket OF the
Irregular Progressive Republican party
on the official ballots
ss'Thc filibustering tactics OF the
counsel for the respondents in the
smandamus case before Judge Nicely
was for the purpose of holding up
4 Judge Neeiy's decision on the man.
damus case or to prolong the case so
that Charles Goodwin could get an ap-
pea! from tie Supreme Court of Ap.
5s speals In the injunction. case disposal
OF by Judge Nicely, making Judge
slcelys order in the case decided by
him OF no effect and making the H.
junction issued by Judge Homer Holt
defective.
IL. was forGthis purpose that tho at.
storneys talked long and strong for a
trial by. jury when there was no law
4ifor a.trialSBy jury but the law saiu
a expressly atid as plainly as 1t could
+ that the Judge should try all cases as
the case at bar.
Judge Necly this morning decided
that The staicS at bar was one In which
Sit was tho duty OF the court to hear
4 ifhe facis5fes we'll as determine the
la&. q He, decided that there was no
need of Ia itlr,s.s Judge Nicely in de,
Gliding. 5iliiss point said that he would
sll>ltch rather leave the matter TO the
Y Judgment OF t~elye mon than TO him
sell we're II I,topor to do SO but with
! tile plain words OF the law 1t was the
duty Of the court alone TO hear the
\ case. q! I, ;is. X fs!ssn 4iE
BY the decision that there would be
no jury trial the case then came to
sthe point vixen the matter came upon
ssits merits. 4.t
~ Tho merits Of. the case were argued
Nttllis afternoon, Judge Nicely will take
tilcS case under atvisement and will
Srender his decision tomorrow some
;4time in time for an appeal to be TAX
zen from Ills decision.
Every step OF the case has beer
Y closely contested. The advocates iCl
1.-THE pernetuation OF the injunction ant
flor! the respondents in the mandamus
scase have employed every means they
knew to establish case. At ever!
z turn they3were. met by advocates wht
stood up for the dissolution OF the in
junction and who appeared for peu
tloners in tie mandamus case with ar
gument AMI decision to scatter every
thing which the other advocates pre-
4 scented to stae cour:.. .s
[ has been great legal battle be
tween able lawyers. There is prob
ably no bar in the State SO we'll in
formed on. election laws as the Ma
rion county bar. Every phase of thu
law has been, completely threashed on
hcrei IL the courts.