Imperial Valley press., 1933-07-07

PLEA DENIED
Continued From Page u

to prevent the harassing of an Off
cial with proceedings which might
result in holding two recall elec-
tionS within six months"
With regard to the appeal filed
by the respondents in this action
before the supreme court of the
state, the opinion says:
Petitioner urges that we cam
not decide the case of Box ct al,
VS.. McIver, ct al, now pending on
appeal in the supreme court. This
is quite true. AS the judgment in
that case is not final we cannot
overlook the possibility of re-
versal and the possible ultimate
success of the defendants in that
action. If the defendants should
prevail 1t would then become the
duty of the board of directors to
call a recall election under the first
petition filed. If that should hap
pen and we should order respond
entS to call and hold the election
under the second petition, 1t would
result in the holding of two recall
elections against the same official
on petitions filed within less than
three months of each other We
think this contrary to the intent
of the legislature as expressed in
the last sentence of section 2812
of the California Irrigation District
Act which we have already quot
ed.D
The background of this action
is in the recall petitions brought
against Adams as district direc-
tor. These petitions were brought
to the office of F. H. McIver, sec
retary to the board, and before
they could be certified, IL sections
disappeared from his office and
have not as yet been located.
InjuAction Sought
On March 16, two plaintiffs, Box
and Martin, residents and taxpay-
ers of Division No. 4, instituted an
action in the county superior
court, seeking to enjoin McIver
from certifying to the petitions and
delivering them to the directors and
the directors from calling this
election.
Answers we're filed to this action
by Hewes and Young, two of the
directors, and Judgment was
rendered by the court on April II
which was appealed by McIver,
Adams, Aten and Rose. This is
now before the supreme court for
it's decision
On May 8, the second petition
for Adams recall was filed and
second suit against McIver to re-
strain him from certifying to this
petition. On May 81, the petition
was filed before the appellate court
asking for a writ of mandate to
compel the directors to meet and
call the recall election.
In this petition it is alleged that
Aten, Rose and Adams have con-
spired and agreed together to stay
away and are staying away from
directors meetings so that quor-
um will not be present and the
election cannot be called.
LOS ANGELES, July 7. W.P)-
Opening briefs In an appeal of the
secretary and three directors of the
Imperial Irrigation District from a
Judgment of the superior court
granting permanent injunction to
restrain calling a special election
for the recall of Burleigh E. Adams,
director, were filed with the state
supreme court today.
The briefs were filed by Attor-
neys Charles L. Childers and D. B,
Roberts, of Ell Centre, on behalf of
F. H. McIver, secretary, and Di-
rectors Mark Rose, Ira Aten and
Adams. The injunction was OBJ
tanned by Maril L. Box and Herman
Hugh, residents of the district,
joined by two other directors. Will
liam E. Young and Evan T. Hewes
Box and Hewes alleged the re-
call petitions filed with the secre-
tary of the board were insufficient;
that the signatures were obtained
by fraud, and many persons who
purportedly signed the petitions
were not legal electors in division
4 of the district, which Adams rep
reSentS.