Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1910-09-03
MAYORALT Y CASE
IN STATU QUO
FOR PRESENT
PENDING ISSUANCE OF
SUPREME COURT MANDATE
Mann Has Little to Say
Lester Believes Contentious
Generally Upheld By Opinion
of Highest Court.

Apparently no move win he made
by either side for The present In the
mayoralty dispute between DR.. John
w. Elder. republican candidate. elect
ed On the face Of the returns II the
last city election. and Felix II. Lester.
now occupying the office on the
ground that he Is entitled to II IL an
accurate our is made of the ballots.
The situation remains unchanged, ac-
cording 20 the lawyers, until the SUI
preme court, following its opinion in
the case handed down yesterday, is
sues the mandate 10 the lower court
which will likely he done in a week
or ten days. While the next move in
the dispute will he awaited with in
terest, both sides are reticent as TO
the course they will follow In the
matter.
"Just at present we have nothing
10 say. was the only statement
~vouchsafed Yesterday afternoon by
Judge r.. A. Mann. Of Mann and Ven
able, counsel for Or. Elder. The
opinion OF the supreme court reVers-
ing the court here of course speaks
tor itself and comment is hardly
necessary, As no mandate has been
issued and the matter is In statu
quo. it IL hardly the time TO say what
the action OF Or. Elder will be when
the mandate takes effect
~ I Wow IT, NNAN Mis AsfHAfAf
the supreme court In debating hat
a recount could have been had IL the
city clerk had been brought into
court with the ballot boxes, has sus>
tanned our contentious all the way
through We claim hat the election
Judges are still judges Of election UNI
til their duty is fully performed and
insist that this duty has not been
fully performed. supporting our claim
with the a%ffidavits OF the election
officials. The court opinion holds
that IL appears the specific statutory |
duty of the election judges had not
been performed and they could have
been brought into court To perform
that duty had the city clerk. who,
as a party in the action; the law
holding that the mandamus writ may
not be granted in doubtful cases
where a compliance with Il depends
upon the caprice of a third person
before the court Therefore as
see II the supreme our has sustain
our claim that The judges could
be made to recount the vote
II is pointed out by friends Of the
opposing party 10 the suit that the
our In its opinion. while IL does
that a rccount could have been
with the city clerk in court.
expressly refrains from saying wheth-
- inv mt AMM Nf AFitNfAitN htNHl
There has been accordingly constd-
discussion OF his part Of the
opinion. which Is as follows.
Whether by amendment In this
suit OF by further proceedings other
the defect now held TO exist cam
he remedied so as to bring the returns
hack INTO the power of the respond-
ent in order that "a writ may operated
upon them, we need not here detcrm-
Inc or Intimate. In order. however.
hat the trial court may be free To
with the matter unhampered byl
The explicit directions in the mandate
We reverse n remand the cause FOR
proceedings not Inconsistent
this opinion and IL Is 50 ORDER
"a.
As my attorney, Mr.. Bnrkhart. is
'ut NJ the city az the present. l do
lot care 20 say what our next move
yill be- la the matter or what pro-
'edure we shall follow 81 any in a
90 bring the ballot boxes into
curt. said Mr. Lester. Il will onlyi