White Pine news. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1920-1923, 1922-04-16

pointed out, that In some JurlSulc-
tions mandamus has been employed
to control discretion and revise ju-
dicial action, but the decisions to
this effect are contrary to the great
weight of authority. OF this char
acter Is the case of Bonnet, Pros.
Atty, v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge,
$50 N. Y. (Mich.), 141, cited by
counsel for petitioners, in which the
writ of mandamus was issued to ex-
punge from the records of the circui.
court report of a grand jury assail-
ing the official conduct of prose-
cutting attorney. In Highs Extraor-
binary Legal Remedies, third ed,
the author comments on the excep-
tional scope given to the writ of
mandamus in the jurisdiction of
Michigan. At page 1876 he says:
A similar departure from the
well-established rule denying the
writ for the correction of errors,
which are ordinarily redresscd by
writ of error or appeal, Is noticeable
in Michigan. The cases illustrative
of this departure from the general
doctrine seem TO rest in part upon
the theory that the granting of a
mandamus to direct The acticn of a
subordinate judicial tribunal, is the
appropriate exercise of a supervisory
judicial control, and is in the nature
OF appellate action, and in part upon
the absence or inadequacy of other
legal remedies.
There is nothing in any of the
decisions of this court cited or dis
cussed by counsel for petitioners at
variance with the general rule which
prevents the issuance of the writ of
mandamus to review and correct ju-
dicial acts. In State ex rel. Torrev-
son James ct ais, % New, 263,
the writ was denied because the pc
titioDer had another adequate REM
edy at Law. The plain implication of
the language used in the opinion is
that. even though the petitioner was
otherwise entitled to the writ, it
could not issue because the relief
sought could be obtained by means
OF another remedy at law. The Ian
guage employed does not mean that
the writ will issue In all cases when
no other adequate remedy is availa-
BILE. The case of State of Nevada v.
Wright, 10 New, 1877. has no bear
ing upon the question OF the pro-
priety of the writ In the present case.
v.
Lander County. % New, II, also
cited and discussed by counsel for
petitioners, does not sustain his con-
tention.
THE general rule that the writ of
mandamus will not issue TO control
discretion or revise judicial action
was recognized in that case, but ii
was held that the questions concern
N xub oh iaf hA ri
of county commissioners must exer-
else judgment or discretion were
merely preliminary ones to the main
question of whether it was their
duty TO allow the claim The ref
erenee in the latter decision tn the
tests adopted in Wood v. Strather.
76 Cal, 545. to determine the pro-
priety of writ of mandate. namely,
whether the determination of the
tribunal sought TO be eoereed was
intended by law to be final. and If
moi. whether there was any other
plain. speedy and adequate remedy
at law, was merely a suggestion.
"The principle recognized and ap-
piled in State v. Murphy, supra. was
declared to be decisive of the ques-
tion presented In State v. Comlnis
sioners Lander County.
THE decisions cited wherein mat
ter held to be contemptuous of this
court has been ordered stricken from
its files and from the records of the
district court are not at all in point,
even upon the main question which
petitioners seek to hacye determined
in this proceeding, that Ii Is their
legal right to have the report of the
grand Jury stricken from the files OF
the court Certainly the principles
involved in those cases are not ap-
plicable to the question presented
here. AS stated by counsel for re-
spondent. the rules governing con-
tempt of court are very different
from the rules governing the issl-
ance of a writ of mandamus, and
there Is no analogy between them. "