Show A WHIT OF MA1A11 L Denied by Judge Idles Who Refuses to Order Chief Pratt Reinstated BOARD ACTED ACCORDING TO LAW I I rl Ughl 0 htI the 110 10 Try tho Chrg tie II let j Judge lilies delivered his decision In tho case of Arthur Pratt vs the honr of pollee and 11m cammIBBlone denying the application of Mr 1 rait for a writ of mandate requiring tho boar to cot anlde an order horetotore mob ososyna dIng him rrom uxrels Ing bin functions and duties as chief of police of Salt Lake City i Judge lilies reviews the history of the case showing that the hearlnt of lb charges against Mr ratt was In progress when lb etocitttua ui piled fob Judge lilies reviews the cane from the timer of tho mine of the charges agalst Mr rait by Henry II Iturton nnd his susi enslon from exercising the duties of his otllre on the 14th of July last 0110 to the present status of the char shoeing that the etltloner 1 appeared before the board on July 10th and demanded to be tried when all the members were In attendance atten-dance at the same time objecting to being tried by the board at all I ccause of the prejudice ef one member and that Oboe Sword too not nonlnrUnn thico of them being Democrats on < lon l-on a Itepulllcm The trial was begun be-gun by the Ixiard on August SOth hut I aft erenvor 01 dats oar of the Inem born Mr Ken on refuse to sit further In the trial of the cause nnl with drw from rurthr loartlclpntlon In the trial The earing I was then al Journed until the attendance of nil the meml ers of the board coul he secured Mr Iratt then letltloned the district court f oratorlto f mOlldte The court refers tJ the port of the net of 1898 relating to the question of the UIenlon I and rmool I ot 00010eoe stating that they show much 10001 I dUng of aloe ill OOSOO oh 1 confusion if Innuoge I Th court qote rron eetlon 10 which dedar that The boar hereby I acute 1 shall have the lower and It stall bo their duty at ant lImo for goooob 0 uaxaor cohen lion good of the servlct will le slit serve 1 thereby Uon Ih concurrence of threo l000obones < theror to ualend tottlo000t pay lOr dlsmls the chief ur enltnln ot ollce ttc Section 11 provide that Any cOil zn nay prefci and nit with the board o complaint and charges against tho hlef or cither del irtment or liny nicer member or emiluie thera ImmedIately UIon tho filing of nucli iharjtcs or of charges preferrel ly he chief of rlth leinrtnunt I the ourd shall gust en 1 oIl rorar memo ber comilalncl of If he le natal ealy unler eusi Oon00oh 1 If in their judgment tOo oaioorg ona0000rooo I sole enslon until tho bloat Irrro000 be hearl and Investigate I Section 14 declares that The chief nod cat tain of pillc < ond tho nslst ont englner at Oboe lIre department eoeh cod nil of thm hall ho uhjoet to sutpcnslon from office for eou by n vote of three members of the booldootafly time The r ourt 80f 1 The suspension her complnln1 of nrems to have been mode under the irovlslons of cellon II That loectlooaeoioooarrs tho board to 1Ipen1 It In thlr 101g ment the ehnrgei worrant upenlon The boord seem ti have exercised the judgment and discretion thus con ferred by the statute In such case 00 court hat our jet undertaken to nterfere with or control the Judgment or ellscietlon of n board when thus inferred h I statute It In I not easy tn l > orcelv why tho eglslatun iooe Itlven the board nn nl solute 1Irllon to ispend on ofllcer when chg ore Iroferred Iy a eltln nnd on the nther han n limited illserotlon fn tiou colon mentlonM In sections 10 anl 17 O000ea lIke tho lobe undr noOle tho honr1 cnn supend It In thell Judgment the charge wnrront It uhllst In other cne the upen slon mast ba for enus shown It in I necesnry to clve tho stlol 111 IntrNfnllon in l ordrr los gIve effect Ia all Its provision In this lartlcula mnUer of ouspen Ion tho tntulo give Oboe boonl tho Iowr to Iotermlne whther It I 0 propor cane for uspnslonoml necol InA to on unbroken current nt outhor ito the court will not In uch ruse In trfere with the dellon uf the boord IIndr a dleretlon thu cOllfrd Horn of the rpondont ash for n writ of mandate to oil the members of the board commondlnA thm to orb I eeed nod tt thee obborgonogoallot the etltloner I to a foal declilon I am of the opinion that that matter mat-ter should boo 1 tIle ibject of n direct roceedlng I against tlm oard 1 for thai PUtlo It an nppllcnUon wer mndo to 0 court far a writ of mndnq to compel the board to proo0oed > lth the trial of the plll1oner I 11110 no 10ut It oaaiol reeolve cl Iouo ronnhlrntlon Th OIUestloo of retlllonr for n I peremptory 1led tacIt of mondnte Is I de |