The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-07-21
No Rehearing of Case Is
to Be Asked Before
Supreme Court.
HoGUE RULING SOON
Game of Three -Cornered
Catch for Office Ended
by Decision.


he would make no further fight to
occupy the office of mayor of In
dianapolis.
State Supreme Court turned down
his claim to the office by an ad-
verse ruling on his appeal late
Friday.
"I'm through and satisfied, 4"
Holmes said. I do think, how
ever, that all phases Of the may
orally tangle should be settled, so
that every one will know just where
legal title rests. I shall not ask for
rehearing Of my case and consider
this action flanl."
The claims of Joseph L. Hogue
are still t. be "cted upon by the
court. 1t was believed that final
decision as to who is mayor of the
city will be made soon.
Based on Succession Right
Holmes case was based on the
right of succession to Office through
the Office Of city controller. The
court pointed out in the decision.
written by Judge julius C.. Travis,
that upon resignation of the mayor
the city controller becomes acting
mayor" and the controller whom he
appoints acting controller" and
that the mayors chair is finally and
definitely filed by election of a sue
cessor by the city council.
Under this Interpretation of the
law, Holmes had no legal right to
the Office of mayor, either as mayor
or as acting mayor" the decision re-
cites. This is based on the idea
that he was appointed by Mrs. John
L. Duvall. who had no more stand
ing than that of an acting controller.
Holmes came into office by ap-
pointment from Mrs. Duvall, whose
husband had resigned the mayorship
after being found guilty Of violation
of the corrupt practices act. When
Duvall resigned he made Mrs. Du-
vail, then controller, mayor. She
named Holmes controller and then
resigned herself and let Holmes
slide into the mayors chair.
The courts decision settled for
ever the idea that this sort of three
cornered catch can be played with
the Office of mayor in Indianapolis.
Decision WOrded Carefully
Decision Of the court was worded
carefully to avoid all intimatio1 re-
garding their probable action in the
Hogue case or the Duvall appeal.
The former mayor has sought ruling
from the high court on his corrup-
tion conviction.
The Holmes suit was filed against
both Mayor l.. Ert Slack, present in
cumbent, and Hogue. Referring to
Slacks status, which may be ruled
upon later, the court says:
1T is no matter to the court in
this proceeding as it has progressed
so far, how slender may be the
thread, by which appellee Slack
holds Office, and even further, it Is
not subject of inquiry here by
what right appellee, Slack, holds Of
flee unless it be shown by allega-
tionS we'll pleaded that Holmes has
legal right to the Office of mayor. E"
Referring to the Duvall decision,
the court declared:
1T is unnecessary to consider that
part of the Information which al
leges the charge by affidavit that
Duvall had committed a crime. ..
The question before us may be de-
cided upon other grounds"
HOgue's Suit Next
Hogue's standing in this particu-
lar suit was set forth as follows:
"It is alleged in the (Holmes) in
formation that Appellee Hogue pre-
tends to have some claim to the Of
flee and he is made a party to as
sert such right if he has any. Such
allegation admits a claim of right
of the appellee. Hogue. to the Office
Inasmuch as Holmes has no right
full claim to the Office he may not
put Appellee Hogue upon his de-
fense to assert his title in the pro-
ceedings.
THE action of the trial court Sus-
tanning the demurrers of each of
the appelles and the Judgment is
affirmed"
Hogue's suit us based on the Du-
vail decision, the jury in that case
having ruled that Duvall, having
violated the corrupt practice act,
never was legally mayor. Hogue
claims he succeeds to the Office, as
he was city controller under the late
mayor, Samuel Lewis Shank, who
was succeeded in Office by Duvall.