Application to the Supreme Court for writ of mandate to compel the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda to make an order calling an election to determine the question of the removal of the county seat, under sections three thousand nine hundred and seventy-six to three thousand nine hundred and eighty-five of the Political Code.

On the 10th day of December, 1872, a petition was presented to the Supreme Court, praying for an alternative writ of mandate to the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County. The petition stated that, on the 22d day of October, 1872, the relator presented to said Board a petition praying for an election to be called for a removal of the county seat from San Leandro, where it was fixed by law; that such petition was signed by one thousand four hundred and fifty-two residents and electors of said county, whose names were on the Great Register, and that they composed more than one third of all the votes cast in Alameda County at the last pending general election, and that, at the time of presenting the petition, the relator also presented proof that the persons who signed it were electors of said county, and their names were on the Great Register, and that the names of the petitioners were signed by themselves, and that four thousand and sixty were the whole number of votes cast in said county at the last preceding election, and that said Board refused to call the election.

The answer admitted the presentation of a petition, and averred that some of the names affixed to the petition were placed there by persons other than petitioners, and without their assent, and denied that it was made to appear to the Board that the persons whose names were on the petition signed it, or that any testimony was offered to the Board that the signatures to-the petition were genuine, or that one thousand four hundred and fifty-two electors, whose names were on the Great Register, signed it. The answer also alleged that, excepting the fact that names similar to those on the Great Register were found on the petition, no proof of identity was offered. The answer also denied that the Board of Supervisors were satisfied with the proof offered to establish the facts stated in the petition, and alleged that the Board was not satisfied, and that more than one hundred persons who signed the petition were, and now are, opposed to the petition being used or acted upon by the Board.

The petitioner moved for a peremptory writ on the pleadings, and also moved to strike out the answer as sham, false, and frivolous, and because the denials were made upon information and belief. Affidavits were filed by the petitioner in support of the proposition that the answer was false, sham, and frivolous.

The other facts are stated in the opinion.