The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1919-09-25
Reasons Are Given.

Reasons Are Given.
Reasons set forth in The motion
are as follows:
First: For the reason that there
are no grounds stated in the appli
cation for a writ of prohibition here.
in that would, under the law, justify
a writ of prohibition in this cause
Second: Defendant denies that
he is a usurper as stated in the ap.
plication for writ of prohibition
herein, but says that in truth and
fact that he is a justice of the peace
in and for justice precinct No. 13
of Grady county, Oklahoma, for the
following reasons, to-wit (a) that
on the 25th day of August, 1917, he
was dulty appointed by the commits
sioners' court of Grady county, Ok.
lahOma, justice Of the peace as
shown by a certified copy of ap,
pointment hereto attached, marked
Exhibit A and made apart hereof;
That thereafter on the 18th day
of September 1917, he duly qualified
by giving bond and taking the oath
of office as shown by Exhibit hereto
attached marked Exhibit B, C and
d, and made part hereof That
at the general election in November
1918, one II. L. Grigsby was elected
justice of the peace, but after such
election failed, neglected and refus
ed to qualify as such justice of the
peace, thereupon the said M. e
Bunnell was duly appointed justice
of the peace as shown in order of
the commissioners Of Grady county
approving the bond of said Bunnell
and certified copy of the bond of
the said M. E. Bunnell here.o at
tached marked Exhibit E and F
and made a part hereof. and thereup-
on continued and has so continued
up to this date to perform all the
duties of a justice of the peace in
and for Grady county. Oklahoma.
Third: That if the court is of
the opinion that the defendant is
not justice of the peace dejure
then that he is by reason of the
facts herein stated a justice of the
peace de facto and therefore the law
would not authorize the issuance of
a writ of prohibition to restrain him
in the performance of his duties as
such justice.
Fourth: The defendant says that
it is not true as stated in said ap-
plication that this defendant is now
threatening to assume jurisdiceon
of said cause and to hear and try
same, but that said case was filed
before the said T. P. Moore and reg
ularly transferred to this court in
accordance with the provisions of
law and at the time that same
reached this court it was set for
September 9th, 1919, and on Sep
tember -, 1919, the said William
Stacey, county attorney. appeared
before this court and asked that
said cause be continued as same was
continued to September 29rd. 1919
That thereafter on September goth
1919, that said county attorney, at
tempted to dismiss said cause, but
the court being of tie opinion that
under the law the county attorney
had not authority under the law to
dismiss said cause without permis-
sion of the court and being of the
opinion that the defendant being
regularly charged with an offense
had a right to a trial refused to dis
miss said cause, and then the coun-
ty attorney applied to this court for
a writ of prohibition, which writ
was served upon this defendant on
the day that said cause was set for
trail. to-wit: September %, 1919
That it is not true as alleged in