The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1910-05-06
DAY IN COURT
FOR ENGINEER
THE COURT, BY QUERIES. lNDl-
GATES THAT IT is WITHOUT
JURISDICTION.

Judge Russell is presiding today
I'm the case of the city engineer
against the mayor and board of city
commissioners. I'm which the cngi-
ueor Is attempting 10 obtain re-
strainng order from the district
court to prevent the board of com
missioncrs to dismiss him from the
service Of the city. Several citizens
OF the town were at the trial. but
the long reading of court opinions
grew tiresOme to some and they
went away.
Attorney II. \. Walker represented
the engineer and CITY Attorney
Moore appeared foe the city.
Mr. Walker read the charges pre-
fcrrcd against the engineer by the
mayor read his answer to the
charges. reviewed the former proceed
iugs of the case before the board
OF commissioners and also read the
answer to the complaint filed by the
city attorney. He took the position
that in order for the board 10 dis
miss the engineer, II must sit as a
judicial body. that the supreme
court decisions go TO show that the
board does not possess judicial pow.
ers. there is no law c1nferr.pg iu-
diCial power upon the board Of city
commissioners. the commissioners
are seeking TO remove irOm cause
and In that ease the accused Is On
titled to hearing. that such hear
INK can only be had in the district
court. the only manner In which the
commissioners can proceed is unde,
the criminal statutes and the case
U hn "A ~
read numerous decisions 10 bear out
his assertions and said the charter
provided no means for the removal or
recall of the engineer The court
asked II the charter abrogated the
ordinance in effect az the time
| the charter was adopted Mr.. Walk
| or replied that he did not think II
did. but that the ordinance which
gave the city council authority to
| dismiss the city engineer was uncon.
stitutional The court then asked
/ where Il could find authority to act
in the case. Mr. Walker replied that
| the statutes clothed the court with
| the authority.
Mr.. Walker said the case at bar
was simply legal question. that
allall the power the commissioners
] nave is lounu III llf f0dIltT, anu
/ that the only method of proceeding
against the engineer Is with grand
! jury. the city council cannot hear
cases of fact. II is not judicial
body judge Russell took an active
interest in the proceedings. ana
several times queried the lawyer.
The court said 1t could not see tho
| applicability of the cases cited but
he would read them himself care
fully before deciding the case.
Mr.. Moore. In appearing for the
city. had but n few moments time
before the noon hour His argument
was that the constitution conferred
judicial power upon boards and com
missions but that judicial powers
were not required to oust the city
engineer. He said the power to ap'
point carried with It the inherent
power to remove. Mr. Moore called
attention OF the court to the ordi'
nance of the city which gave the
BOARD the right to dismiss any ap-
pcintive officer and cited the charter
To show that the ordinance was still
In effect and that the board had a
perfect right TO proceed in the mat
I ter.
/ Mr.. Moore had not concluded his
argument when the court took n re-
cess until . o'clock this afternoon.
The case at press hour had not
been concluded.