Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1870-08-02
LOCAL NEWS.


To-day, iu &c EgUIty Court. a., g. a., >,.,,,,
et al agt Duhant et al-the OLD nernh,.s az 49,,
FIRE department a.,a;ns, the late apn,i,t.s.
Application tor injunction TO restrain tlnSe ,,.,,y
appointed from working the rrs depsrtme,,,
MesSrs. kidd!e and Fisher Tor ,e:it..TreTs ~,
Messrs. y. Wilson and EnOch rOtteu Tor the
respondent wss token up.
Mr.. Wilson read the snswcr 10 me hin N
which Y A. stated that ON the l1th OF July =
meeting oi the CJn,suiSslOncIS as. heli. a.
Nh'rh cerfTtn orfc-> were declared vacant. az
they Wcre Informed D. MI. tiuaIArl ths- np
meeting hau been held since p.cern bar 18Th:
'haTEes LIag several OF tue men DISMISSED we're
= lad Nuaas tcl, Lat the horses and Nssa-s
naG be,n ascd iyi election puTpSs =, 8 az s.,cr-
al OF the compis'nAut~ were ny lfI-'. a..
pointed inembtfs OF the Department - INA
were removed lsssagse they we-,. taro .,t,,fepf
aDt others 10 caaS' taelr iaIt.-r a. trart. ~,
WIN the department. would b-iug ii tuta,l re
pUtC.
Ar. wilson sts'ed tsst hs lad severed ,Fvs,-
vac a. & The clsys aoter Oi abe irtt-s rtTlBxed
Nr Ritfle >'a'sl hat the com, a,ua1ls had
opened On Ssturaav. and NJ. wf.bf r.-.-a, leI
Wsth hts argument. stating that -'ls s~-g.sr auf
the reoOrd showed chat the board Ssre not a.
hasiy IN their action st aT~t supposed.
Tie cORiellssd that the court had no fIrtSfir' n
AZ tlc oaso then stood. for Il ~as a question OF
law, and taai question should n hrsi D. settled
hN court Of law. lie took the ground that the
Parties bringing tins case 10 court had miscon-
celNed their remedy. and quoted frotn q John
son. chancery 20, and sd Barbour. 5A. thar the
proper course was hy Jao teIrTdsfa. TIE further
quoted from 2,th y a. Reports. .. .th Eng-
lisli hallHa ay Gases, 81. on the other side hut
one case had been cited "a IA. RrI,ortSb IN sun
Port 81 their case, and in the same volume he
found case in which the ruling was iu Accord
ance with the rullngs m tie csSes he had read
lie repeated that Chis WAS a question of law
which should INT be decided bv a court OF law
Mr.. Wilson neNt read the 9th section - 80
act OF ApTil, 1874, that the Etre Comm --l .....
snail arPcint persons q hold their IU..-t,ls
during good behavior, aud have power d re-
move or eNfei. He CuRtended that un..r tbe
act the commi-s pncrs lad power - cNt,.i a =
move and they were made Judges OF 80 rau.s.
Cf removal and read SarbOur's y. NSC r.
ports. page - and l@th Howard isl. He CON-
tend.d tlat ..iie statutory privilege may h,
obtained by Court ot Equity ha must ha,. No.
session OF and unda9bted right % N Al which be
claims and referred TO 81 Daai.,s Chanrsrv
l'2S There was an extraordinary con giamera-
ton OF parties OF THIS suit three or m bre classes
OF persons appointed ~ different tines o1t of
the 81 petitioners u never received an appoint
ment nom the Board. lie repeated taat the
court had no jurisdiction and The bill should be
dismissed.
Judge Moore. who appeared FOR a number Of
the defendants, follow ed Mr.. Wilson, said thar
Il had long been settled that = Chancellor wouIt
not interfere when the parties have taeir RENE
dy at law he claimed that the com mmssioncr-
Nere regularly appointed, AMI there was no ap-
peal frOm their decision.
Mr. Riddle, for the petitioners. took the
ground that the petitioners were cntitle % re-
W6rs,o WI n this e0aT srs and aetsd 10 saPr2r, On
gued az consider able length that, although the
court might not have the power 20 review the
acts OF the commissioners, IL did not give the
commissioners the power 10 remove without
cause. The fact that whole companies were re-
moved AT a crack shows that they acted tor no
litical reasons, and three weeks Afterwards.
when called upon 20 answer, thev make q
frivolous answer, an which they DO not say
tnat Tor cause they were removed. but for
cause they might have been removed aud
therefore they did not meet the bill. The
commissioners did not inquire a. - charges
against the men, hut they declared their po-
sit'ons vacant, and this act he coutended Was
yo d act. Baldwin and Duhant have been re-
iected. Have they been Fire COMMISSIONERS
They never were commissioners in the contem-
plation OF the law. The gentlemen saw that
they have remedy by quo s-IrrIHtO when that
writ would not reach the greater part OF the
defendants.
AT the conclusion OF Mr. Riddles argument
q Gdge Wyiie said that he would render his de-
Cision on Saturday.