The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-11-19
Proceedings on New Commits
sion Law Injunction Still
Remain in Allegiance.
PUSH CASE THIS WEEK
City Attorney Will Not State
What Course of Action
He Will Take.

The next step in the proceedings begun
b. Martin T., Mulvey 10 test tho validity
and constltutionaiitv Of tho commission
law will be taken Monday, according TO
Nj. Mulvey, when an action Will be in
stltutci iu the state supreme court. When
counsel for j. *, Mcleod In his petition
for writ of prohibition prohibiting and
restraining the city recorder from ISSUING
the newly elected officers tho certificates
OF their election admitted the demurrer
presented by the city attorneys office
and consented 20 the matter being
quashed IL Was announced that Il would
be 6icd directly in the supreme. court
and II Is unde rstood that this action will
be taken Monday.
The action in the district cour; was de-
INJURED TO By City Attorney Harper j.
did not have jurisdiction In prohibition
proceedings instituted against minis
tcrial officer the courts OF California
having SO held. This was admitted by
soren X. Christensen. attorney for Me-
Leod and Alulyey, who consented TO tho
matter being quashed. declaring, how
ever. that there bad been an agreement
between the attorneys for the newly
elected officers and himself that the
matter would be taken 70 tic supreme
| court and there decided on its issues
and merits
City May Defend.
The city attorneys office WAS not a
party To this. agreement and Mr.. Chris
tensen stated that he did not know
whether or not IL would be represented
In the case when it goes TO the su-
preme court, Ii Is thought. however.
that IL Will. as il becomes the duty Of
the city attorneys office to defend All
actions against the city and the city
officers so that II would he Mr., Dinin-
ny's duty TO go into the case Il IL Is in
stituted against Mr. Eives again or
against any other city official or body.
Mr. DInlnny defended the city recorder
in the past proceedings. together with P.
]. DAILY. assistant city attorney. Mr. DAILY
dccla crd Yesterday morning that. TO his
understanding, there had been no agree
ment between Mulyey's attorneys and the
attorneys for the newly elected officers,
and Mr.. Dininny likewise expressed his
Ignorance OF such an agreement yester-
However, L. NJ. Allison Of Van Cott.
Allison & Ritter, one OF the firms repre-
senting Mayor-elect Sam G. Park and his
fellow officers. confirmed the statements
OF Mr.. Christensen concerning all agree
ment declaring that 1t has been agreed
between the attorneys 10 go Into the
supreme court and have the case de-
cided on It's merits II possible. we have
agreed said Mr.. Allison yesterday. that
we Will have the case heard on It's issues
and merits and waive all techniCaltles
If possible. We are dcsirous OF settling
tho Issues as soon possible and think
tha, this Is the best way at the present
time"
attorney In the matter, however. is un-
known. When asked yesterday after
noon what he intended TO do, Mr.. Dinin-
ny said that nothing had been filed he
did not know what sort OF n proceed Sc
Ing would be brought and was. there
fore. unprcpared to say anything Asked
IL nc would raise the Same technical OBJ
lection IL r like petition was filed In
the supreme court 10 the one filed in
the district court. he declared that that
was "a bridge to be crossed when they
got to it,. and that further he had
nothing To say as TO this
Mr.. DDinny stated that he did not want
20 stand in the way Of the proceedings
in any way and his action would lie
governed somewhat by the desire OF the
newly elected officers.