The Weekly Arizonian., 1870-01-01
Territory f Arizona t1 te
 C.r-1ls I ,944-5

tri tEfi4fs a. C".ts
 a. asiloys. ssl
 Tshn 5 Alien. Ta t9ra i1tee.oe-f5iy Trars-s C1.e9 Basa.or ar -1.nHsa3n
 g--rat 2 Lord, Jsrri'o-ia-
 hpcaor
 D~rY. Auy fir Tou,toly.... 8aslsorl Aay for -staHaa-I5... ....--s- -i-4. l--Es
 Tlais sIaotig,.. aa Aails,.z 3, 5asaLss tho .a--r-eaa,o,y 5uacuaa, ordered y g isrmsr Judge oltAis District, aad suei in pursuance tbereof bv tue Clerk of said Court, to res train the said CoIes BasaforI, payment to ihs amount of cersain bonds and warrants. in the aggregate as alleged, of the sum of six ibou- sand four hundred and ninety-seyen dollars l9-l00 delivered oy ths Territory him for ,-.--.--s. -1r-0f---,,- lsan.--i e'.0 S"srri-
 No obj c,ion Is made to .as charac' r, per formance or compensation of!he services hp. rendered. and received or in any other man ner to the merits of ;ha defendants case,
 The facts stated iu the reator's aftidsv -p irs,jfy the issue of this inj Inction. arr rs5 that the said Coles B.shtord was appointed 0 the office of Attorney General, by the Govern or of Arizona Territery, the lst of February, 1864, without authority of law and in deFoga- ion Of the righta Of the people Second that subsequently the said othco of Anoruey-Gen eral, was created by the first legislature of Arizona Oct 4th 1864, and the said Coles Bashford, though a msmbes of the legislature creating the said of7ce of Attorney General, was appointed to fill the same Nov. 10, 1864; Third, that ihs said Coles Bashford was, by act of the same legislature, approved Nov. 10, 1864, made oae Of the Board of Territorial Auditors, and assumed to exercise the funo- tioRs of the last two mentioned offices, in de- fiauce of all law and justice, and in plain and palpable violation of the organic law of the Territory of Arizona; FourkH, that the so- called legislature, pretending to be in session at the institution of this suit, Dec Is, 1868, had assumed 60 pass aci, instructing the said Territorial TOSasurer 10 pay all Territorial bonds and warrants of the Territory, oulstand ing and unredeened, including those in con troversy in the present case notwithstanding
 4L> H a-it statAS the snil rlrsl 9 ndad lsaie-- latdre had no legal existence, by reason of the fact that its members were appor toned by tbe Governor oFthe Territory, and elected on 8 day anknown to the law, to wit. i: the 3d day Of June, 1867, and that both houses of the said legislature hsd allowed and permitted nor residents, tgo ia nlmber to occupy seats there. in as members, as well as by reason of the fact that the upper house of the so-callsd legislature had convened and adjourned without quorum of members present And FTtTh, that the bonds and warrsnts in controversy were audited by the Governor and Secretary of the Territory, acting as majority of the Board of Auditors, in violation of its organic law, and that the people of the Territory of Arizona dema nd protection against such acts of usurpation.
 The reasons assigned by affidavit and on mo. ton for tue dissolution of this injunction, are among others the following; First, that it was ordered, sx patie, no service of notice of any kind having been made on the defendant Charles H. Lord, and no sufficient actual or constructive service having been made on the | defendant Coles Bashlord Second that tn. complaint on which the injunction was issued | does net set forth a sufficient csGse of action. and that the proceedings of the pisintf are ir regular and defective Third, thst the com plaint filed in the case Is not suficien. to au- thorize the issue of au injunction, because it does not aleSs that the af1iant knows the con- isnts thereof; Fourth that Mir Oury, who in sLtutes the suit for the Territory, was not at the time Attorney General in fact or otherwise, because on Oct. 27th l866 more than two years before ths institution of the present suit ( that office was abolished Fitth that the in- junction is void, because it was iIIusd by the Clerk, and could only have baen issued by the 8 Judge who ordered it at his Chamber, Sirth. t hat the injunction is void, even If properly is Iusd, because it does not follow the literal di- T ections of the Judge, and includes only the f defendant John B. Alien, whereas the 6iree- |