The silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1909-1925, 1922-12-23
R[HEAR|NC DENIED
IN ELECTION SUIT
supreme Court Denies Petition TO,
Rehearing in Warren-Wilson
Case; Warren Still Has
Two Issues in Court

Another development in the suit
Of H. Warren VS.. L. G. Wilson, to
determine which man shall be the
district attorney of Humboldt coun-
ty during the next four years, was
recorded this morning when the
opinion of the supreme court on
Warren's petition for a rehearing
before that body was received, de-
nying such petition. Warren still
has the matter before the supreme
court, however. on two other meth
DDS of legal procedure and the mat
ter is consequently not yet settled.
II appears, indeed, that many other
steps will be taken before it is
definitely determined who shall be
the district attorney.
As it now stands, Wilson, the
incumbent, is scheduled to continue
in the office after the first of the
year by reason of decision of the
supreme court, reversing the district
court. in which II was declared that
Warren was regularly elected. The
matter of whether or not pencil
marked ballots shall be counted ap-
parently is to determine which of
the men shall hold the office, and if
counted or not counted the winner
will have a majority of only a few
votes, anywhere from one to three,
II indeed it should not be an even
division. Warren wins if pencil
marked ballots are counted and Will
son wins if they are not.
Attorneys OF record in the case
are J. A. Langwith and Campbell
L Robins for Wilson, and Warren
4 Dignan and McCarran & NASH
burn for Warren.
In the petition for rehearing be-
fore the supreme court, the de-
csion received today says, attorneys
for Warren relied upon FIVE con-
tentions: That no bill of exceptions
was ever filed upon the appeal (of
Wilson,; that there is no assign
ment of erors; that "there Is not a
scintilla of evidence properly be-
fore the court upon which to base
any opinion upon the merits of the
case; that the court was without
authority to render an oral opinion
in the case; and that the court was
without Jurisdiction.
The supreme court in its decision.
written by Justice Coleman and con-
cured in by Justice Ducker and
District Judge Hart, who sat for
Justice Sanders, says that "none of
the grounds assigned as reasons why
reheafing should be granted goes
to anything urged upon the original
hearing or decided by the court.
This OF itself is sufficient reason
Tor denying the petition, as has
been repeatedly decided" the opin-
ion states, and continues:
I'VE are amazed mt the conten-
tion Of counsel that there is neither
bill Of exceptions nor an assign
ment Of error in the record. Both
are OF record. 49,. II may be that
the bill of exceptions is somewhat
informal. and that certain defects
exist in the assignment of errors. !.
The respondent was in court and
was heard both as to the prelimi-
nary matters and on the merits. !.
Respondents rights were, we think,
safeguarded upon the former hear
ing IN every way possible. ="
AS to the contention that the su-
preme court cannot make an oral
Judgment, the supreme court points
to the fact that McCarren, of coun-
sci for Warren, was guilty of the
same practice while chief justice of
the court, relying upon the opinion
mat an oral judgment may be given
II the law requiring a written de-