Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1847-12-03
LOUISA RAIL RoAD.-MANDAMUs CASE.

Judge Nicholas Yesterday delivered his opinion
on the motion Of The Attorney General on behalf
Of The Board Of Public Works, 10 qnash the
rule. The Court overrued The motion, being
OF opinion that they might be proceeded against
y. ,l.a name nj "The. Boara. Of Public Works,
which was The style by which The Board was
constituted by the ACT Of 1923, and By viii CHI
the Board was named in every acl Of Assembly
since and that aflidavils were not The only evil
dence by which foundation could be laid for a
rule Tor a man,ianus.
Messrs. Pallon AMI Lyons, The counsel for The
Louisa Railroad Company, then moved the Conrt
that the rule be made absolute, and that writ OF
mandamus nisi issue against The Board OF Pub.
lie Works. They did mol ask peremp'ory man.
damus, because they said they were willing 10
give The Board Of Public Works time still TO
show cause for their proceeding, and opporluni-
~ still OF making The subscription required by
The law upon the Louisa Railroad Company sa,
tisfying Them that the private subscriptions were
made and secured
Thereupon, The Attorney General moved the
Court TO enlarge The rule, SO as 10 give The Board
time TO make return 10 II.
This question was argued by he counsel for
the Railroad Company and BY The Attorney &C.
neral and Governor Smith, who asked 10 be heard
as party 10 The proceeding.
The Court overruled The motion OF The Board
Of Public Works, and sustained lha, OF the Rail-
road Company, and awarded mandamus nisi,
relurnabe TO The 10th instant.
The Court said that the Board OF Public
Works, SO far as The evidence went which was
now before The CouIl, had rested its refusal 10
make the subscription on The ground lhal The law
did not authorize The Rail Road Company to Sc
lect the route i, had determined 10 select, in the
proceedings of the stockholders on the 23d Sep.
TENDER.
That the Court saw no sufficient reason why
The Board Of Public Works could not make re-
urn OF that reason without delay-lhat whether
that was good reason for their refusal or moi,
could as we'll be considered and decided on their
return 10 the mandamus nisi as by return 10 the
rule.
That whether The one course or The other should
be pursued, depended, in the opinion OF The Court,
whether The Rail Road Company had made oul
prinla fucie case or not. And the Court was OF
opinion that il had. For the act of Assembly
was express, that when The Rail Road Company
showed that private subscriptions had been OBJ
tanned and secured, "iae Board of Public Horks
| SHALL subscribe on behalf OF the Common
wealth" in The proportion specified in the law.
| That the President OF The Rail Road Company
had offered TO prove that private subscriptions 10
the requisite amount had been made and secured,
and The Board OF Public Works had refused 10
subscribe-no no, because Of The insufiicency Of The
/ hso mir yua nj nj n 10,
ing secured, but on grounds which prevented them
from examining into that matter that is 10 say,
solely on The ground that the Company had select
ed one route Of extension rather than another
That i, seemed 10 The Couri that that was a
matter for The Railroad Company, and not The
Board Of Public Works, 10 decide upon.
That, from The language Of The law, il
seemed To The Court that it was referred 10
| the Stockholders 10 select the route OF ex-
tension best calculated TO promote the OBJ
iecls indicated by the law-wheher they had
acted ju1icously or not The Court did not
know, and could mol judicially enquire into; nor,
in the opinion OF The Court, had The Board oil
Public Works any right to do so, with view 10
determine whether they would subscribe or moi;
that the law gave Them no such authority or dis
cretion.
That while these were the impressions oil The
Court as 10 the law oil the case, ii did not mean
concusively so 10 decide By granting manda-
mus nis-lhal The Board OF Public Works
might, in their return, raise these questions, or
any other questions ii thought proper, and they
would be dolly considered BuI, in this stage OF
The proceedings, The Court would act on his pre-.
sent strong impressions-that the Board OF Pub
lie Works ought 10 make The subscription, when
the Railroad Company showed that The private
subscriptions had been made and secured, as pre-
scribed by The law.