Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1847-12-08
FROM THE RICHMOND enquirer. DEC. T.
LOUISA NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. CASE

Judge Nicholas yesterday delivered his opinion
on me mo'ion OF the Attorney General behalf of
the Board OF Public Works, to quash the rule
Inc Court overraled the motion, being of opinion
Una. mey might be proceeded against by the name
OF The Board of Public Works." which was the
style by which the Board was constituted by the
act oil 1898, and by which the Board was named
In every act of Assembly since; and that affidavts
were not the only evidence by which a foundation
could be laid for Il rule for n,antla,nns
Nlessrs. Patton and Lyons the counsel FIR the
Louisa Railroad Company, then moved the Court
That the rule be made absolute, and that writ of
mandamus n,st issue against the Board of Public
works lhey did not ask peremptory manda-
mus because they said they were WILLING TO rive
inc BOARD OF Public Works time still to show cause
~, nI.l prosecuting and opportunity still ofmaking
Tue subscription required by the law, upon the Lou
isa taiiroad Company satisfying them that the pri-
vate subscriptions were made and secured.
Ihereupon, the Attorney General moved the
court 10 enlarge the RULE, as TO give the Board
| time to make return to 1T.
This question was argued by the counsel FIR tho
ha.lroad Company, and by the Attorney General
anu Governor Smith, who asked to be heard rs a
| party TO the proceeding.
The Court overrued the motion of the Board Of
Public Works, and sustained that of the Railroad
Company, and awarded mandamus MS; ro,,,rn,
bic TO the 10th instant.
! Inc Court said that the Board of Public Works
SO lar as the evidence went which was now before
the Court, had rested its refusal to make the sub
scripslon on the ground that tho law did not author
lze the Railroad Company to select the route it had
determined to select, in the proceedings Of the stoc
holders on the 23d September.
:, nat me Court saw no sufficient reason why the
BOARD OF Public Works could not make n return of
that reason without delay-that whether that was
good reason for their refusal or not could as we'll
DC considered and decided on their return to the
madamus niSi rs by return to the rule
whether H. a. IL I
DC pursued, depended in the opinion of the Court.
whether the Railroad Company had made ont =
pRIMA FAcIE case or not And the Court was of a.
p'hon That 1t had. For the act of Assembly was
express That when the Railroad Company showed
that private subscriptions had been obtained and 60
cured, THE Board OF PUBLic Works SHALL
subscribe on behalf of the Commonwealth, in tbo
| proportion specified in the law.
That the President the Railroad Companv had
ohered to prove that private subscriptions to the
ti",s"e ,"ioIhi mad been made and secured, and
the Board of Public Works had refused 10 SnIso;ho
not because of the insuf1iciency of the private
SUBSCRIPTIONS or want of proof of their beng secured
out on grounds which prevented them from exam
ming mo that matter; that is to say solely on the
ground mat the Company had selected one route of
sAlenSion rather than another. That it seemed In
the Court that that was matter G,r Tho R,;Iroo
! company, and not the Board OF Public Works IN
/ decide upon. "
That. from the language of the law, it seemed
W INC court That 1t was referred TO the Stockholders
10 select tho route of extension best calculated to
promote the objects indicated by the law-whcthor
they had acted judciously or not the Court did not
Know, and could not judically enquire into, nor. in
me opinion OF the Court, had the Board of Public
| Works any right TO do so, with view to deter
nine whether they would subscribe or not that the
Jaw gave mem no such authority discretion
nat while these Were the impressions of tho
Court as TO the law of the case it did not mean con-
clusively SO to decide by granting mandamus nisi
that the Board of Public Works might, in their
return raise these questions or any other questions
1t thought proper, and they would be duly consid.
e cred But In this stage of the proceedings, the
Court would act on his present strong impressions
that the Board of Public Works ought to make
the subscription. when the Railroad COMPANY
showed that the priva subscriptions had been
made and secured, as prescribed by the law.