
    PEOPLE ex rel. WIRT v. BUDD.
    S. F. No. 775;
    January 19, 1897.
    47 Pac. 594.
    Mandamus—Appointment of Police Commissioners.—A Citizen Is not “beneficially interested” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1086) in the appointment of police commissioners for the city and county of San Francisco, so as to entitle him to sue, without permission of the attorney general, for a writ of mandate to compel the governor to make such appointment.
    
    Petition, on the relation of N. S. Wirt, against James H. Budd, for a writ of mandate.
    Dismissed.
    N. S. Wirt for relator; Davis Louderback for police commissioners; W. F. Fitzgerald, attorney general, and D. H. Anderson, deputy attorney general, for defendant.
    
      
       Cited and followed in Fritts v. Charles, 145 Cal. 513, 78 Pac. 1058, where the plaintiff, a private person, sought, by mandamus, to compel a justice of the peace to issue a warrant of arrest.
    
   PER CURIAM.

This is an application, on notice, for a peremptory writ of mandate to the governor of California to appoint two police commissioners for the city and county of San Francisco. The attorney general moves to dismiss the proceeding, upon the ground that the relator has received no authority to sue in the name of the people of the state, and that he is not himself a party beneficially interested (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1086), in any sense that distinguishes him from other citizens of the state. The grounds of the motion are conceded, and the motion must he granted: Linden v. Supervisors, 45 Cal. 6; Ashe v. Supervisors, 71 Cal. 236, 16 Pac. 783; Colnon v. Orr, 71 Cal. 43, 11 Pac. 814; Marini v. Graham, 67 Cal. 130, 7 Pac. 442. Proceeding dismissed.  