The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1852-07-27
Decisions Of the Supreme Court.
a JULY TERM 1852.
Present Justice Wing, WhiPple. Douglass
Pratt Johnson and Martin

Present Justice Wing, WhiPpIe. Douglass,
Pratt, Johnson, and Martin.
In THE NATTER OF THE GovEnNMENr SrocK
BANK.--D. Bethune Duffeld, and Donald W.
Mcintyre, scverally madc applications for a
mapdamrs directed 10 the State Treasurer
commanding him to give public notice iharthe
bills of the Government Stock Bank, will be
redeemed at his Office. Z,
The applications were founded upon affida-
Wits. showing in substance that each of the re-
lators, had, at different times presented ut the
| counter of tho bank, for redemption, packages
of its bills; that in each Instance the president
of the Bank. or person IN his employ, pro-
ceeded, deliberately, to take one bill at time
from the package, scru,inize it. take it back to
another part of the room, count out one by
one gold dollars to tho amount of the bill, re-
turn with them to the counter, and then pro-
coed with each remaining bill in the same way
--thus rcdeeming about 5000 a.day and re-
fusing to redeem in any other mode Such
portions Of the packages ss remained unfe-
deemed, were sealed up by tho relators. and
afhdavits of the facts presented to the State
Treasurer, and request made of him, that he
give notice of the redemption Of the bills, and
sell the stocks pledged for their security az
provided by law. The State Treasurer had
delayed action on the application for some
ud)c, rtntiup tutt ne utblItu IO tukS tI6 Opil-
ion Of tho Attorney General, and perhaps to
hear counter afidaviis. which the counsel of
The bank had asked leave to present. and this
motion was made to compel action to be ia
ken .... f.
Held by the Court--lst--That the facts
shown by tho affidavits, amounted To q refusal
on the part of the Bank, TO redeem its bills in
tho manner required by it's charter.
2d--That If the nfidavits presented to the
Treasurer. were such as the Statute contrm-
plated, and showed refusal on the part of the
Bank to redeem, the State Treasurer had no
discretion in the matter. but was bound to give
the rotice forthwith, and the delay on his part
was such as to authorize the inierposition of
this court. though that delay arose. probably,
from an honest doubt as to his duty in the
premises.
Judges Whipple and Martin dissented. hold
ing that there had been no unreasonable de-
lay. on the part of the State Treasurer tn act,
and consequently that the motion for mahda-
mus was premature.
3d--That tho mandamus shotld be q per-
emptory. and not an alternative onc--Judges
Whipple and Martin dissenting.
THE PEOPLE VS.. JAMES BEADLE.--Case GER
tilted from the lIilsdale Circuit The de-
fendant being arraigncd after Indictment, by
the Grand Jury. plead in abatement, that tho
foreman of the Grand Jury by which he was
indicted was chosen ira Voce instead of by
ballot as directed by Statute. The plea wns
demurred to, and the question Of its validity
reserved for this Court.
Opinion by Judge Whipple--That tho de-
murrcr 10 the plea in abatement is well taken
BENNEr vs. ATWOOD AND OTHERS "A certi-
orari had been allowed in this case. to remove
the same from the County, to the Circuit Court.
The affidavit. upon which the same was al
lowed, was filed by the attorney for plaintiff in
error, with the clerk Of the Circuit, and GER
tiorari directed to bo issued: but for some rea-
son which did not appear, the writ in fact was
not issued until more than five days had cx-
pired and was then dated back to tho time
when the affidavit was filed. A motion was
made to dismiss the writ, on the ground that
the Statute requiring the writ to be issued with
in five days after the filing of the affidavit, and
not dfterndrds, was peremptory, and not di-
rectory merely, and tho writ being issued after
the expiration Of five days. was void.
In opposition to the motion il was claimed:
lsi--Tbat the Statute was directory merely
to the Clerk.
2d-1'hat ono Of the We days next after Tho
filing Of tho affidavit being Sunday, the Clerk
was entitled to sixth day in which to issue
the writ.
Opinion BY Whipp'e J.-Tha. tho motion
should be granted, il sufficiently appearing
from the affidavits presented, that tho writ did
not issue within sir days after the affidavit, ives
filed.