Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1919-10-23
|, ". ". INJUNCTION STANDS


court Judge Mark r. Averill over.
ruled the demurrer of defendants in
The suit of the State of Nevada ct al
plaintiff vs.. George Kinser ct al. de
PENDANTS Fifteen days are allowed
for an appeal. This is the famou,
|. W. W. case wherein a restraining
order was issued by the court. In
passing upon the demurrer the court
takes occasion to discuss at length
h" relative rights of American cit.
zens and unnaturalized foreigners in
a manner that is likely to call forth
the highest Commendation of loyal
citizens, The opinion is one of the
most important emanating from a
Nevada court and The Bonanza pre-
sents il in full with the exception
of few citations which would be
Of interest only to the legal fra
ternity which has access to the
opinion in full In Overruling the
demurrer the court states specifically
hat the original restraining order
with slight modification remains In
'Orce The opinion follows.
Nine grounds Of demurrer are Of
cred for consideration The first
is general-that the complaint does
NOT state facts sufficient to consti-
tute a cause Of action One fault
'ound with it Is That it is too gen
rally wordod thai it Is composed
# conclusions Of the pleader, infer,
tnces presumptions. opinions and
OF law have read ii
carefully several tines. It is true
that many OF its allegations are of
. general nature but it does. never
theless, contain many averments Of
y Kind no' Objectionable as of too
General a character Taken as
whole its assertions seem to be set
out with as much particularly as the
of the situation set
forth will permit Under the code
rule that the allegations Of pleadings
shall he literally construed, it is suf-
ficient as a basis for an injunction
if not Objectionable upon some OF
the other grounds Of the demurrer
Certain Of the defendants points and
on general demurrer will
be discussed later.
Attitude of Governor.
Five Of the other eight grounds OF
demurrer question the right Of the
governor to have any connection with
his suit. claiming want of authority,
defeat of parties plaintiff. ambiguity
etc. The remaining three
question the right OF the state Itself
fp maintain tho Suif
As to defect Of parties plaintiff
NE wording of the statute Is in the
there Is a defect or
of parties, plaintiff or de-
,endant," There being but one party
plaintiff. the state, as shown clearly
by the title of the cause and the
first paragraph of the complaint, this
objection does not apply.
1t is evident from the complaint
that this suit was brought by the
attorney general at least as attorney
for the state The governors con
ertion with it seems to be two-fold,
that he directed it be brought and
hat he acts as relator. No wording
If the complaint actually states that
he governor directed the suit to be
brought but that fact seems to be
apparent; and if not, II is OF little
because the attorney
general need not be directed, but
may proceed upon his own opinion
We have both officials here and un.
ioubtedly acting in harmony. 1t may
he that the words In the caption "by
Emmett d Boyle, Governor" are sur
plusage but they may also be treated
rs showing the association OF the
Governor and attorney general in the
uit, which simply means that the at
ornev general is acting under dlrec-
ion of the governor In any event
they do no harm. o.
The expression "on the relation OF
Emmett d. Boyle" means that he Is
thp relator or informer, in the sense
of one who relates or informs or
tells The state itself can speak
I,Iy through some natural person
who relates" the facts to be present
d for consideration. The general
qIps on this subject are then cited'
erfying Complaint
1t,e complaint under consideration
, verified by the governor Ihe
above section contemplates actions
su.CN by the attorney se'1t I,hnuab a., oh
ii quo warranto Proceeu, 35a ,nss; Nomo15a hr 10
hesc also may De e' uirec'eu Wy me h,,
GOVERNOR ana also s, otnet aocUaintoS aoc,om1
the state Ihe person ,.om a1qno'"tor ha "ro'