Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1911-01-14
WHAT ARIZONA OFFICERS
SHALL Be CONTINUED?
THE CASE OF W. W. mEEDsN Be
FORE SUPREME COURT.
The HeriioL Mandsmus Case Will Be
Heard Today

An interesting case, though not the
most important on the supreme court
docket, that OF &. v Meeden against
the board OF supervisors Of Yuma coun-
ty. was argued yesterday This is an
application for writ of mandamus.
The petitioner is the county assessor
Of Yuma county whose term of four
years for which he had been appointed
expired on January l.
There had been a house cleaning
in the board since his appointment, and
the new board named a successor. Mr.
Meeden declined to surrender his Of
flee on the theory that under the en-
abling act he should hold il until
statehood had been secured or until
Arizona should know that il would not
be admitted
That is. Mr.. Meeden believed that the
clause of the enabling act continuing
incumbents III office applied To the APP
pOintiVe as well as elective officers
Mr. Meeden therefore held the fort
but the board refused to supply him
with ammunition in the shape of as
sessment lists. maps. etc. So that he
was unable to undertake the duties OF
his office The writ of mandate for
which application was made was in
tended to compel the board To turn over
these documents.
In the beginning Thomas d Mol
10y represented the petitioner, but he
subsequently, withdrew from the case
and the matter was argued for the
petitioner by Captain Alexander. Hon.
Eugene =. Ives appeared for the board.
Captain Alexander took the broad
ground that the clause of the enabling
act upon which his client relied ap-
piled to all officers in the territory.
Chief Justice Kent with a cuizzical
expression asked if it was the under
standing of counsel that it applied also
to the judges Captain Alexander had
no doubt OF il. whereupOn the chief
justice doubted whether the members
of the court as interested parties
should pass upon this case. The APP
plication was taken under advisement.
The only other case before the court
was that Of Belle j. Barnes. admins
tratrix of the estate Of William y.
Barnes against L. c. Shattucll and J.
L. B. Alexander and Mrs. Mary Street
administrative of the estate of Webster
street intervenors.
The action lies rather between the
appellant and the intervenors, who are
really the appellees in a case decided in
their favor by the district court at
Tombstone, where judgment was grant
ed in their favor for the amount OF an
attorneys fee i'm matter in which Mr..
Shattuck was a litigant and the hus-
band of the appellant and the firm of
Street and Alexander were associated.
II was expected that the case Of Elias
s. Kimball and Richard A. Ship, APP
pelIants against the territory, respond
ent. from Graham county, would De
heard Yesterday. but that matter went
over until today. There will also be
heard today the application Of Hans
Herlck for a writ of mandamus to be
directed against the board Of supervis-
ors To compel the board to permit the
issuance Of a saloon license to the pc
titioner. This case is Of greater local
interest than any other on the calen-
dar since il will result in an interpre-
tation of the siX-mile limit law.