Weekly journal-miner., 1910-01-26
GRoNLUND CASE
 IN SUPREME COURT
(From Fridav's DailY.l


 One of the important matters that came up before the Supreme Court was the application of William Gron lund for a writ of babeas corpus GrOnlund was a saloon keeper il the Walker district, Yavapai county and he was convicted before a jus tice of the peace of selling iquol in that district after an order by the board of supervisors, following 2 local option election, declaring it 8 prohibition district.
 The application for the writ was made direct to the Supreme Court in stead of the District Court.
 The first question was the propriety of the submission of the application for a writ to the Supreme Court in the first instance and it was in that question that the court seemed to evince the greatest interest. It was the position of the attorney for Gron- lund that there had been in the first place a want of jurisdiction to in flict punishment.
 He said he was not attacking the local option statute but he was con- tending that the board of supervis- ors had not proceeded regularly un- der it.
 In the first place there had been no adequate description of the bound aries of the local option district; it was not even set forth that it was in Yavapai county, and that the de- scription was otherwise so shadowy that one engaged in the liquor sell ing business anywhere in that com munity could not know whether he was in the prohibition district or not. For this reason he believed that the election precedent to the order of the board was invalid.
 In the next place, he eontended that the local option election law had not been complied with in the matter of registration. Though the law itself does not specifically make registration necessary, it requires that the election shall be held in conform ity with the provisions of the "gen- eral laws" That is, the voters must be "qualifed voters" A "qualifed voter," under the general laws, must be registered, and the supervisors are required to order a registration for general and special elections.
 In this case 50 votes were cast. Of these voters, fl were registered for the last preceding general cleo tion in 1908. The names of the other g were put on the Great Register by the County Recorder, without any registration having been ordered by the board.
 Though it was asserted that no at- tack was made upon the local option act, it was his theory that the act was so worded or that there was such a neglect of wording, that an elec- tion held under it could not be in conformity with the general election law.
 MT. Galbraith, for the office of the Attorney General, took the ground in relation to the order of the SUD- ervisors creating the prohibition dis triet, that in the language of the statute, "the order thus made shall be held to be prima facie evidence that all the provisions of the law have been complied with in giving notice of and holding such election, and in counting and returning the votes and declaring the results there of"
 The court having expressed doubt as to its power to inquire into the proceedings relating to the election, MT. Galbraith believed that there was nothing else to be decided.
 The court then took the matter un- der advisement.