Show mandamus MANDAMUS iAN DAMUS the case gase of kimball KIn iball to ichards before the territorial Sup supreme renit court on friday tb the c appeal in ibe the case of J N kimball respondent vs F D richard Richarda appellant came up ill before the supreme court E kiln binl ball is the appointee of governor murray to the position of probate judge of weber Cor carrity rity to which place FD F D richards was elected and by reason of which election he still holds the office kimball applied lo 10 judge emerson through mandamus to be installed in the office Kit Kim ballo affidavit upon which the alternative writ of mandamus was is issued sited alleges that richards was a polygamist and not entitled to hold bold the office afler august 1882 that no n election was held at the time that on september iolli 1882 gov murray appointed him probate judge that oil on september he lie executed his hii official bond that he lie subscribed the required irel oath of office that lie took the bond and oath of office to the treasurer odthe of the count county for was u u able to finY find bim him that dint he left said bond with the treasurers Treasur ers wife that the governors commission was tinly issued to him that on oil october 1882 he presented said laid commission to judge juo Rie richards bards and demanded the del delivery ivery of tile books papers etc belonging to the and t that 11 at richards refused te to deliver them until a successor to him had been duly elected bythe by the people A was filed in the alternative writ and judge emerson overruled it the tile answer filed by richards denies nica nic a most of the allegations in the tile affidavit and alleges that richards since the day of june 1862 has hai not at any timo time or place married any woman or entered into an any y married relation with any woman and on information and belief dc tit bics that he was a polygamist on the first monday in august or at any i other time and further alleges that by the tile laws of utah ho be is c entitled att led j to hold said office till the first mon day of august 1884 I kimball obtained a ry writ moved an appeal and stay t of proceedings pending tile api appeal and both were granted grantt and ic it was on this appeal that tho tile case cast came I j up on friday I mr brown opened the argument I on behalf of alie appellant he was followed by judge sutherland for kimball williams and arid kimball spoke on the same famo side as judge sutherland and the argument was closed by rawlins Raw linsin in behalf of F D richards at the conclusion of the argument the cuse emse was submitted and taken under advisement in T n the main tho the same issues are involved in this case that aru are embraced in tho the other mandamus proceedings ce the question odthe of the right of polygamists were elected to office before the passage of the E edmunds bill to hold bold office is raised in this case cue and will probably be passed upon there are two imi important propositions involved and upon which the supreme court is expected to decide does the hoar amendment oust all officers whose term of office has expired Is the E edmunds bill meant to oust all ista from office whether their terms have expired or not if it should be decided that the intention of congress was intended tu to oust both the tile result can gan easily be le imagined if the contrad contrary y opinion opinion is is maintained the other effect can readily be anticipated the decision will be looked forward to with a great deal of interest S L herald |