Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-02-10
Supreme Corr, Decision.

- We have been favored with a copy OF the De-
cision of the Supreme Court in the case OF the
State Batzner relative TO his deialcatIon. W e
presume the tar piyers ofthis county could hard
" read this decision without feeling almost in
dgnant and without entertaining a much less re-
spect for the opinion OF the Supreme judges than
they would like TO feel toward the opinion of men
placed in that high and responsible position by
tier votes We learn thar the opinion was de
lvered by Hanna. and. taken in any light re-
fleets no credit on him. 1T it expresses his opin-
ion. he is no lawyer. II IL does not, he is a dis
honest man. In either event. he should be held
accountable by the voters of the State. liz is a
decision ia which not only the people OF 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
Count, Treasures in the State that worth
the paper they written upon.
We are pleased to learn that the attorneys for
the State, Messrs Holland and Binkley. are
making an effort 20 obtain rehearing of the
case; but whether they will succeed or not, We
of course do know. One thing, however, we
do know-and that is. that nstice and true
gard for sound and established principles of Law
demand that the decision should be reversed.
Il The foregoing article from the National De-
fender published at Brookville, is rather a novel
mode of urging the re hearing of decided
hy the Supreme Court Ii can hardly be sup
posed that when Mr.. Holland is elected to the
Supreme bench, he will consider such a mode of
approach to his court either dignifei or respect
full. He ought not to set an example the imita-
ton Of which NAV plague the inventor.
= The truth is. the case that arouses such bitter
outbreak of feeling. was suit upon County
Treasnrer's bond. The Treasurer had absconded
with over so 900 Of the State taxes; his securi-
ties we're sued. ana naturally enough proper
70 defend themselves. 1t was life and death with
them. for most of them would have been ruined
BY an adverse judgment. On the other hand, f
they were released the tax upon the citizens of
have been a trfie in comparison
There IS an attempt To create feeling on the
part Of the tax -pivers where none at present ex-
lists. When the came up for trial, the
counsel. who how concern Themselves so deeply
for the tax ers. ,could not submit he case 10 a
Jury Of those Oery tar payers. The defendants
were compelled 10 try the case by the Judge. or
TO submit 10 the Inconvenience of change of
venue The Judge. perfectly honest and highly
capable. though not infaloIe gentleman. gave
Judgment tor over S25 900 against all the defend
ants but one. whose signature. il Was conceded,
had been forged
The Supreme Court reversed the cause on two
grounds: LIST. The action was wrongly brought
on the relation of the Treasurer Of State; the
proper relasor being the Auditor of State. 2d
The defendants were discharged. some by false
representation made by the Treasurer when ne
solicited their signatures; and the Others by the
fraudulent act Of presenting them bond to sign,
or which appeared the signatures of other persons
who were not bound
The opinion OF Judge HANNA presents a careful
and elaborate examination OF the law ana dis
plays learning and research. IL is not possible
for an unbiased mind read his argument
without very strong impression that his ground
is irnpregusble aud his conclusion iuscouforint,
with the interests of the public. h Is hardly
fair Tor counsel after taking the pains print in
their petition for re hearing the entire opinion
of the Court and the Whole of the evidence. 70
make appeal through the newspapers TO the
tax paye-s OF the county means If re EN-
forcing their argument for re-hearing. II
would be pAltry Court that could be 80 cheapy
iptim;dated