The Detroit times., 1912-10-07
FAILS
TO KEEP OWENS
NAME EOFFBALLOT
Circuit Judges Dismiss Injunc-
tion Suit Because il Was
Filed as Individual
IMPROBABLE HE'LL
BRING NEW ACTION
Prosecutor Likely to "Sit Tight"
and Let Proctor X. Do
the Fighting

Judges Mandell, vanvile and Hally.
sitting en- banc, Saturday morning,
denied the petition of Prosecutor
Hugh Shepherd for an injunction TO
prevent the Wayne county election
commission from printing the name
or Proctor X. Owens on the ballots in
the November election for the ONCE
OF prosecuting attorney for the short
term. The judges decided, after hear
ing arguments on both sides, that the
prosecutor had no legal right TO file
his petition as an individual, and.
therefore. refused to grant the prayer
set forth. AS an individual, he had
no personal interest In the office, they
explained. In their decision, which
was verbal. they didn't touch on the
legal phases OF the dispute over
Owens right TO the nomination, which
he got by having three friends write
his name on the primary ballot.
Asked whether the prosecutor
would file another petition as prose
cutting attorney. Assistant Prosecutor
Arthur Fitzpatrick, who, with Special
Prosecutor Charles T. wilkins, repre-
sented the prosecutor in court, stated
that he would be unable to say just
now what course wouia De taken.
Undoubtedly, no matter what ac-
ton the court may eventually take on
the question:" said Mr.. Fitzpatrick,
there will be further lawsuits in the
case, and we may let Mr.. Owens start
quo warranto proceedings to remove
the prosecutor after the November
election. In that event II would be
Mr. Owens who would have to do the
lighting"
Mr.. Fitzpatrick, however, said he
believed that the prosecutor would
stand a good chance OF securing the
Injunction by filing petition as
prosecutor, because he would thus be
able TO show a greater interest In the
case, being the servant of the people.
Attorney Edward Grece, who repre-
sented Owens. In his answer to show
cause why the injunction should not
be issued. quoted q number of court
decisions in similar cases, and point
ed out that there was at least one
parallel instance where an office was
filled by the same method employed
by Owens, and the candidate allowed
to take his seat without question.
This case was that OF A. c. Adsit, of
Grand Rapids. Mich. whose name
was written in on the ballot fofeshe
Office of circuit Judge.
Mr.. Fitzpatrick met this citation by
explaining that the electors had re-
ceived due notice that Adsit was to
be a candidate for the once. with the
result that he got 1000 votes, where
as Owens got only three and these
all in one precinct. Mr.. Fitzpatrick
contended that Owens was irregularly
before the people; that IL was not
generally known he was a candidate
| for the office OF prosecuting attorney.
Mr.. wilkins contended that the
writing OF Owens name on the ballot
was illegal, inasmuch as the election
authorities had given no notification
to the electors of Wayne county that
there was a vacancy for the shor;
term OF prosecuting attorney. II such
vacancy really existed. He also
fcontended that the legislature had
provided for the filling of such va
cancies by circuit court appointment,
or special elections.
Shepherd was appointed by the cir
cult court to fill a vacancy and he
contends that his term holds over un
I'll Jan. 1, when his new term, II he
be elected in November, will start
Owens, on the other hand, argues
that Shepherds appointment termi
mates at the time of the election, and
that he is entitled 10 the office from
Nov. to Dec. 81, 1912, as the only
candidate for the place.