Show I Dm D BY A DEC1SlO f1 I Fire Chiefs Ratchet Has ut s I Edge Severely RESTOJ Turned I MONTAGUE IS RESTORED I J SLXOTHHIt ACTIVE DAY IX TILE LOCAL LO-CAL DIVORCE MILLS ialu anti titlictc S < orics Told a Pretty lint AeKlecteil Women l City Motion In tlic Goss Cajgg Overruled VrococUtuBS in the Probate Court klli ji I J If the rascals arc to be turned oW aeiided Judge Merritt yesterday MP ing turning his attention to Fireman Montagues application for a MR n < 1 inus against the chieftain who bad headed him it must be under the 11 visions of the law creating JiboaJ fire and police commissioners andre lating the fire and police depart further It It was upon this and a Sng that the law emulating the tIep meats went intu effect immediately on obtaining the governors pprof that a peremptory writ was issued Chief Devine directed to take bade fireman hed fired The issue that had been exhaust presented by Hem O W 3Pp author of the Sill creating the oom Won for the petitioner and Judge for the respondent iTolved two 4 tions whether a writ of manQoti was the proper channel through < to reach the case before the U again nether the law and its 11 visions vent into effect and wete operation upon the governors sIn 0 s-In determmmg the first the cz quoted at length from the eompl laws designating the courts wItbn jurisdiction of which the right tb S sue a writ of mandamus came 1 writ to issue in all cases where this I th-Is not a plain speedy and adeqil remedy in the ordinary course of la Highs Extraordinary Legal Remedies continued the court had also recosnlsfa that mandamus was a peculiarly fitting remedy to correct an improper sjpi moal from public office and through f which to restore the person improperjyi removed And tontinued the CotttC where one has been wrongfully ftr prived of his office by the illegal 43 j pointment of another a writ of man i mus will lie to compel his restoratt nj ven though the person appointed ti ms stead be in possession de faol > The common rule that to warrant ujt removal of an officer specific chars S must be brought against him Is hfi fit applicable even to offices unknown i the common 10 w and created 153 Matute and a disregard of this rule in The amotion of an officer may authorise I compelling uie aId of a mandamus iitnration The same writ will go o i ban commissioners appoint I 1 nder at ct of the Legislature for tl e TI iiormance of certain duties requl I1 lig them to restpre a member remove L 113 1 them in disregard of the carom n law principles The Legislature in ill it IM > > had undertaken to pass an it that the right of removal shspl I lie vested in a hoard of commissioners iui providing Mat no employee in tte ciipaitmert in i > stion shall be remor ed except for cause the cause to lh 1 F ta ted to the bard and whose COB > > tlusion thercn would be final Whether the act hi3 been passed by the legisil I tore for titrtisan or nonpartisan put lSeS i wa not for the court to det iimc It vas its duty only to const clip law on the subject whether Ue p dicy was good or bad It was within the legislatures l power to pass the lit vii v-ii IT i hose su to do and in the courts opinion the act went into effect immtfi iatly This deprived the head otije jditirent of the power of nand n-and vested it in the board of commi Eioners provided for under its provl ions even though that body had n t I yet been appointedIt was no fault < f 1 the petitioner that it had not been Under the circumstances and vrit i these views the court held that tl l e petition would Me and ordered that the alternative writof mandate h rto ore 1 s sued be made peremptory I The views of the court were received with quiet demonstrations of approval I among those whose crowns are impor lied and already uneasiness has begu to grow less t f |