Case Name: The State of Kansas, on the relation of L. B. Kellogg, Attorney General, v. N. F. Watson
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1889-01
Citations: 42 Kan. 95
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Kansas, on the relation of L. B. Kellogg, Attorney General, v. N. F. Watson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 95–95

Head Matter:
The State of Kansas, on the relation of L. B. Kellogg, Attorney General, v. N. F. Watson.
Mandamus, by The State against Watson. The petition, filed in this court on January 23, 1$39, states among other things that defendant was elected county clerk of Gray county to fill a vacancy, and for the term which will expire on the second Monday in January, 1890; that on January 12,1889, the defendant entered upon said office and assumed the duties thereof, and on that day proceeded by force and violence, which included bloodshed and murder, and took from one A. T. Riley, his predecessor in said office, the records, books, papers and other things appertaining thereto, and removed them from the town of Cimarron, and from the building and room procured and designated by the board of county commissioners for the place of holding and keeping said office, and took the same to the town of Ingalls, and has ever since then assumed to hold his office at said town. Wherefore, plaintiff prays the court—
“To cause to be issued a peremptory writ of mandamus, compelling the said defendant to restore to the place in the town of Cimarron from which he took them as aforesaid all the records, documents and other things appertaining to the office of county clerk of said county, and that he hold his office as county clerk of said county in the town of Cimarron, at the place which has been provided and designated by said board of county commissioners for that purpose.”
L. B. Kellogg, attorney general, Johnson, Martin & Keeler, and A. J. Bryant, for plaintiff.
O. N. Sterry, and Geo. W. Dunn, for defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
Upon the authority of The State, ex rel., v. Malo, just decided, the application for the peremptory writ of mandamus will be denied, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendant for costs.