Show I MCLEllAN POINT Appellate Division of Supreme Court Indorses Hearst Quo Warranto Proceedings ev W York ork March X Bv By a mouse moue f ote vote the appellate division of o ote te supreme Curt court today decides decided d against George B McClellan in ihs Ih legs light fight l ht to lo prevent quo warranto proceedings or 01 a recount of ot the th vote Yot east ast fa t in the t e Xe ew City It election of nr lI Th rh t was W lS add adel d to the ti decision dedsion 4 re r t questions qu l j b up to the court of fd n h final ruling flip l e appellate divisions view is I that the th of or ora a former formel attorney gen emi Julius M L ill er In refusing tu to Institute te recount proceedings did not serve s s a bar bin to such mch action upon the part oZ 0 the present attorney attorn gets gen genral 11 ral who undertook un the lile suit at the re fJ o or l R TI Hearst justice in his decision said eld coUld ronld bt l bi no question that upon the tile allegations of t e complaint c th the lias ha a good goo cause of action There Is 15 no provision he decided that would limit or restrict the general g in the exercise of Or his ls discretion di as aP to whether r an act ad by the people be bo brought bro The decision d slon Rd el From the very nature nn tun of the discretion tion tie Vested rested in him it 11 e ta me im impossible possible to say sa that he hO exercises e at atan any an time lime a Judicial function or 01 that any determination becomes an adjudication adjudication cation which Is in binding on him or any body bod l se e The question not being Ju in nature the e fact that one ntH at attorney torney general determined that he was wis not justified in commencing an nn action is no bar to the same attorney general or his successor suc subsequently deter determining determining mining the th as a then hen th n presented re require re require quire that the action be Instituted |