Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-02-15

We have been favored with copy Of the De-
eision OF the Supreme Court in the ease OF the
State VS.. Baizner, relative 20 his defalcation: We
presume the tax PAYERS ofthis county could hard
" readAthis decision without feeling almost n
1ignant and without entertaining a much less re-
spect for the opinion OF the Supreme JUICES than
they would like 70 feel toward the opinion OF men
placed in that high aud responsible position by
tEeir votes We learn that the opinion was do
livered by Hanna, and. taken in any light.
fleets no credit on'him. IL IL expresses his opin
ion. he is no lawyer. III il does not. he is a dis
honest man. In either event. he should be held
accountable by the voters Of the State. IL is a
decision in which not only the people CT this
county are interested, but also those of nearly
every county in the State. We presume that
according to his logic. there are but few bonds of
County Treasures In the State that are worth
the paper they are written upon.
We are pleased to learn that the attorneys for
the State, Messrs Holland aud Binkley. are
making an effort to obtain rehearing of the
case; but whether they win succeed or not, We
Of course do not know. One thing, however, we
do know-and that is. that justice and a true re
gard for sound and established principles Of law,
demand that the decision should be reversed.
The foregoing article from the National De-
fender published at Rockville. is rather novel
mode of Urging the re-hearing of case decided
by the Supreme Court. Ii can hardly be sup
posed that when Mr. Holland Is elected to the
Supreme bench, he will consider such mode of
approach TO his court either digni6ei or respect
full. He ought not to set an example the imita-
ton Of which may plague the inventor.
The truth is. the case that arouses such bitter
outbreak of feeling, suit upon County
Treasurer bond The Treasurer had absconded
with over 10000 of the State taxes; his securi-
ties were sued, and naturally enough saw proper
to defend themselves. Ii was life and death with
them. for most of them would have been ruined
by an adverse judgment. On the other hand. il
they were released, the tax upon the citizens OF
the county, to make good the defalcation, would
have been trAe in comparison.
There is an attempt to create feeling on the
part Of the taxpayers where none at present ex-
lists. When the cise came up for trial, the
counsel. who now concern themselves so deeply
for the tax payers, rcould not submit the TO
jury Of those gerry tar payers. The defendants
were compelled to try the case by the Judge. OF
to submit to the inconvenience of change OF
venue The Judge. a perfectly honest and highly
capable, though not infallible gentleman, gave
judgment for over S25 900 against all the defend
ants but one. whose signature, it was conceded
had been forged.
The Supreme Court reversed the cause on two
grounds: LIST. The action wrongly brough
on the relation Of the Treasurer of State; th,
proper reiator being the Auditor of State ID
The defendants we're discharged, some by false
representation made by the Treasurer when h,
solicited their signatures; and the Others by the
| fraudulent act Of presenting them bend to sign
on which appeared the signatures of other persons
who we're not bound.
The opinion OF Judge HANNA presents careful
and elaborate examination of the law and dis
PLAYS learning and research. IL is not possible
for AN unbiased mind to read his argumen
without very strong impression that his grounC
is impregnable. and his conclusion in conformit,
with the interests of the public. 1t is hardl,
fair 70. counsel after taking the pains to print il
their petition for re hearing the entire opinion
Of the Court and the whole of the evidence. I,
make an appeal through the newspapers to tn
tax payers of the county as means of re-en
forcing their argument for a re-hearing. |
would be paltry Court that could be so cheapl,
intimidated.