
    The State ex rel. Moseley v. Wear, Judge.
    
    In Banc,
    July 6, 1897.
    Furniture for Building Used as Court House. The statute > authorizing the holding of eireuit court at Dexter, empowered the judge to cause the offices of sheriff and clerk and the room used for court purposes to be furnished at the county’s expense. The evidence showed that the room, which was a hired one, was properly furnished for the use of the court, and the sheriff and clerk had made no request for furniture. The owner of the building, which was used for other purposes besides the holding of court, requested the judge to furnish the court room with permanent seats, and on refusal brought this suit to eompel him to do so. Held, that the furniture now used answering the purposes of the court, the writ must be denied.
    
      Mandamus.
    
    
      J. L. Fort and Walker & Jourdan for relator.
    A practical, common horse sense construction of the intent of the legislature as expressed in its language, “shall cause the said court room ... to be furnished in a proper manner,” was that respondent should cause to be purchased for the permanent furnishing of the court room suitable furniture.
    
      W. S. Pope for respondent.
    It appearing that the judge has exercised wise discretion and forethought, been careful of the interests of the public, and at all times having in view the wants, needs and ability of the county, the writ* according to ' all authority and precedent, ought not to be made peremptory. State v. Wilson, 49 Mo. 146. Triner v. Porter, 45 Mo. 336. Miltenberger v. St. Louis Co. Ct., 50 Mo. 172. Snyder v. Newman, 91 Mo. 445. Faires v. Buhler, 90 Mo. 560. State ex rel. v. Cramer, 96 Mo. 75. 
      State ex rel. v. Smith, 105 Mo. 6. State ex rel. v. Fiad, 108 Mo. 614. State ex rel. v. Oliver, 116 Mo. 188. State ex rel. v. Board of Health, 103 Mo. 22. Moses on Mandamus, 54.
   Brace, J.

By an act of the General Assembly approved March 16,1895, Session Acts, p. 143, providing for the holding of two terms of the circuit court at Dexter in Stoddard county, it was among other things provided, that: “The judge of the circuit court of said county shall select a suitable place for holding the court at Dexter, and for the offices of clerk, sheriff, ■and juries of said court, and the place so selected shall be entered upon the record of said court, and shall thereafter be known and designated as the courthouse in Dexter; and the expense of renting and keeping the same shall be paid by said city of Dexter. The said judge shall cause the said court room and offices to be furnished in a proper manner for said court and its officers, and report the expense thereof to the county court of said Stoddard county, which shall allow and pay the same.”

In compliance with the requirements of this statute the respondent, judge of said circuit court, on the first of June, 1896, selected a suitable building in said city for the purposes of said court; said building being the property of the Dexter Improvement Association, composed of thirteen members, of which the relator is one, and the president of said association. It is admitted that the association controls the building at all times except when the circuit court is in session; that the term of the circuit court for the'three terms held at Dexter, including the present one, has been four days each, and that all the furniture necessary for the use of the court was in the court room prior to the present term; that at no time has either the sheriff or the clerk of the court made any request of the court for any furniture or apprised the court of the necessity of any furniture for their use. It further appears from the evidence that the offices of the sheriff and clerk are properly furnished and all the chairs necessary, and not provided for the court room, could be hired whenever necessary at a mere nominal cost. Under these circumstances the respondent declined to furnish the court room with permanent seats at a considerable outlay to the county as requested by the relator, and hence this proceeding to compel him to do so.

The requirement of the statute is that the court room and office shall be furnished in a proper manner for the transaction of the business of the court at Dexter, and nothing in the evidence tends to show that it is not so furnished. It may not be furnished according to the judgment of the relator, in a proper manner for all the purposes of the building, but with any other purpose than those of his court the respondent has nothing to do. The legislature vested in him the dis-, cretion of furnishing the court room and offices in a proper manner for the discharge of the business of his court. This he has done; and in the exercise of that discretion we find no abuse that calls for the intervention of this court; on" the contrary it seems to have been exercised with careful regard for the public interests, and deserves commendation rather than censure. The peremptory writ is refused.

All concur.  