State v. Superior Court of Lewis County

• Decision Date: 02 November 1912
• Citation: 127 P. 313,70 Wash. 670
• Parties: STATE ex rel. FORGUES v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LEWIS COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

127 P. 313

70 Wash. 670

STATE ex rel. FORGUES v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LEWIS COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 2, 1912

Department 1. Action by the State, on the relation of A. J. Forgues against the Superior Court of Lewis County. From a judgment for defendant, relator brings a writ of review. Affirmed.

B. H Rhodes, of Centralia, and William A. Greene, of Seattle, for plaintiff.

W. N Beal, of Centralia, for respondent.

GOSE J.

On the 11th day of September, 1912, one Blue, a citizen and taxpayer of the city of Centralia, a municipal corporation, commenced an action in the superior court of Lewis county against L. Mabel Lee as city clerk of that city. He alleged that a certain petition filed with the defendant, having for its object a submission to the qualified electors of that city on November 5th the question whether the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be licensed or prohibited therein, was illegal and void, for the reasons that the number of electors voting at the last general election held in said city prior to the filing of the petition was 1,330, that 480 names were signed to the petition, that neither of the signers of the petition stated either the name of the precinct wherein he resided or his post office address. The petition further alleged that the defendant, unless enjoined, would cause such question to be submitted to the qualified electors of the city on November 5th. On the 18th day of September an order was entered sustaining a demurrer to this petition. After the filing of the opinion in State ex rel., etc., v. Superior Court, 127 P. 120, the relator commenced a similar action against the same defendant in the same court, alleging in his petition that he was an elector and a taxpayer within the city of Centralia; that he was a retail dealer of intoxicating liquors therein; that he held a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors issued by the city; and that he also held a retail internal revenue license. He also alleged that the petition attacked in the Blue Case was illegal and void for the reason that it was signed by only 471 qualified electors, and that the number of electors voting at the last general election prior to the filing of the petition was 1,759, and that 30 per cent. of that number was 528. The record in the Blue Case was pleaded as a bar to the relator's case.

The case was called for trial on the 25th day of October, whereupon counsel for the respective parties stipulated (1) that 'the records and files' in the Blue Case should be received in evidence; (2) that 1759 votes were cast at the election held in the city for Centralia on the 28th day of December, 1911; that 440 votes were cast in the 1910 municipal election; that 908 votes were cast at the general county election in 1910, and that the petition was signed by 471 electors; (3) that the election held on the 28th day of December, 1911, was the first and original election held under the commission form of government in the city of Centralia for the election of city officers; and (4) 'Mr. Green this brings the case down to two points, namely: First. Is the case of Blue v. L. Mabel Lee, Clerk of City of Centralia, which was formerly tried in this court, res judicata in this case? Secondly. Was the election held on December 28, 1911, a general election?' The court held that the election held on December 28, 1911, for the election of city officers, was the last general election held in the city of Centralia, and that the judgment in the Blue Case was a bar to the relator's action. We think we have fairly stated the record. We have found it somewhat difficult, however, owing to the fact that the record in the Blue Case, although admitted in evidence, has not been brought to this court. The relator has sued out an alternative writ of review.

The record presents two questions: (1) Was the election held in the city of Centralia on December 28, 1911, for the purpose of electing city officers to carry out the change to a commission form of government, a general election within the meaning of the local option law? Laws 1909, p. 153, § 3(2). And, if so, is the judgment in the Blue Case a bar to the relator's action?

We think the first question must receive an affirmative answer. In the recent case of State ex rel., etc., v. Superior Court, 127 P. 120, we had occasion to consider the words 'the last general election within such unit,' found in the local option act. After considering the purpose and history of the law, we there said: 'To that end we believe that the words 'last general election' were used advisedly and mean any general election at which there has been a general and popular expression...