Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-10-17
CLAIM BOARD ERRED
IN EVERYTHING NEW
COUNTYPET|T|ONERS
Mandate Suit Charges Illegal
Conduct to Fergus COun-
ty Commissioners.
Tribune's Helena Bureau.)

Helena, Oct. 16.-Charging that the
conduct of the board of county COM
missioners of Fergus county in its dis
posal of the petitions for the creation
of the proposed county of Petroleum
was arbitrary, erroneous and contrary
to law, an application for q writ of
mandate was presented in the supreme
court Monday requiring the board to
give proper consideration TO the with
exclusion petitions, determine that the
exclusion petitions, determine that the
original petition contains signatures
of at least 5S per cent of those quail
fled to sign and to proceed to the or
ganization of said county or else show
cause.
The application is brought on the re-
lation of Archibald H.. Faraqher and
was presented to the court by Ralph
j. Anderson, with whom is associated
as counsel for the relator, Gels d
Wiedman of Lewistown.
The application shows that on April
10, 1922, a petition vas filed for the
creation of Petroleum county, signed
by more than IS per cent of the quail
fled electors of the territory involved;
that May IS, 1922, vas fixed as the
date of hearing of the petition, but
that at 4:45 p. m. of May II a protest
vas filed, which the commissioners
wrongfully proceeded to hear.
685 Valid Signers
The application alleges hat the reg
~istration books showed 1896 persons
were qualified to sign the petition but
at the hearing it was found that is
of these had died, 124 had removed
from Fergus county and 225 were dis
qualified to sign by reason of Illegal or
irregular registration, thus reducing the
number of those qualified to sign to
1879. The board found $50 good and
valid names upon the petition.
1t is set out that Withdrawals from
the petition were filed with the county
clerk on May II. at 800 a. m., but
that prior to this time Withdrawals
from the Withdrawals had been filed
which the board failed to consider, the
board taking into consideration only
the original Withdrawals. 1t is alleged
that 100 Withdrawals from Withdrawals
had been filed, which would have given
a total of 794 good and valid sigma
lures to the petition, which number the
board considered exclusion petitions
which should have been barred by rea-
son of not having been filed before
May II.
Court PonderS Suit
Accordingly. it is alleged that the
boards conduct was arbitrary. CHROME
Gus and contrary to law in three re-
spects, namely %. in receiving and
hearing proof in support of protest, in
that it was not filed at least one day
before time fixed for hearing the petit
ton; %, in refusing to consider and
in refusing to give any force and effect
to the Withdrawals from Withdrawals of
100 persons; (3) in failing and neglect
ing to deny petitions for the exclusion
of territory by reason of the fact they
were not filed at least one day before
the time set for hearing on the petit
tiontion for the creation of the pro
posed new county of Petroleum.
In view of n number of other mat
ters coming before the court at the
same time it was taken under advise
ment and no order was issued Monday.