To compel respondent to draw an order on the city treasurer for payment of relator’s salary as sidewalk inspector, where respondent sets up that relator was not legally appointed because the mayor vetoed the resolution appointing him, and the vote to adopt, notwithstanding the veto, was declared lost for want ■of the necessary two-third’s vote, but another resolution was offered which received the necessary vote. The circuit judge •denied the writ.
Reversed and writ granted March 20, 1894.