Rose

This proceeding is brought for the purpose of prohibiting the Superior Court from proceeding with the trial of an accusation against Mark Rose as one of the directors of the Imperial Irrigation District, and for his removal from such office as such director. The accusation in effect alleges that George Herrick Davis is a resident, qualified elector and voter and taxpayer within the district; that Mark Rose was elected a director of the district in February, 1921; that Mark Rose has not nor has any person been elected as his successor and that though an election was purported to have been held in February, 1925, that by a judicial determination the purported election was held void; that therefore Rose continues to hold by reason of the election of 1921; that since the election in 1921 Rose has “knowingly, willfully, corruptly, wrongfully and intentionally” violated the express duty of his office in the following particulars:

It is unnecessary to attempt to enumerate the various items exjiended further than to say that other than those paid to the petitioner and defendant, they are all alleged to have been in one way or another incurred or expended in behalf of pending legislation,…

I dissent, mainly because in my opinion, officers of an irrigation district are not subject to a proceeding of this nature.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on February 19, 1927.