, 1870-05-03
TIE THOMAS 1NJUNcf1oh's
: fhe Matter Argued, Yesterday
Before Judge Williams.
A,pnmeuts Of :Messrs Tree and Har.
vey.
Cnso Under Adviscmeut.

The case Of William L Thomas Y. the Board Of
Supervisors wes taken up yesterday In the Circuit
Court, before Judge Williams
This ls proceeding IN equity, commenced By
Summons and Injunction, BY the writ In which the
Board Of Supervisors was enjoined from proceed
Ing, by resolution, to discharge the fireman Of the
county side OF the Court House from his employ
ment :
The county proceeded by demurrer TO the bIn,
alleging want Of equity. The demurrer came on
to be argued. For the county appeared Lambert
Tree, Esq, and for Thomas, the complainant, Rob-
4ett Aerrey, Esq.
ARGUMEsT FOR DEFENDANT.
Mr. Tree stated The motion and read the bill
The bill sets forth that the complainant, On or
about the 9Th Of September, 1850, entered Into q
contract with the Board Of Supervisors, by which
he YVES to 1un the healing apparatus, and keep in
necessary repair all the heating apparatus en-
gtne. fan, etc, attached to the Cont Hous.
.{county stde,, for the period Of two years, for
900, payable monthly, the city to pay for matc-
tial used in repairs. Immediately upon the c1ecu-
ion OF the contract complainant entered upon his
duties 1n1cr it. and performed them under and
n41ceably to the terms Of the contract But about
the 1st Of April last, the Board Of Supervisors by
resolution, appointed q committee Of nine Of its
members to investigate anJ and all charges that
might he preferred against any persons In the en-
>ploy Of the county, or against any members Of the
bcard, with Instructions TO report at the next
meeting Of the heard. The committee proceeded
to entertain and receive :. hf manner or charles
against divers persons In the employ of the county,
aid, among others, charges were preferred ~
*ztdng Against complainant Being informed o.
theze charges complainant demanuea I'LL anp
to introduce such pruof as might be Necessary 70
establish their utter grouad'essness, ,t ~. LIZ Il
.csmmltlee having the matter In charge passeo
-fSsulutton thas III PERSONS charged with any
-o1ience rounected with the duties q taciz 9iaces
in the employ Of the country si9na DC 81
fhe cnances should make his statement concern.
tnf7 the saIuc Under this resolution complainant
was excluded from ihs f0o 9ane ana n 1oi tbe other
Ttnesses and was not AWARE Of the substance ol
tfe1r testimony until some tme atteEWafd u Is
avetrcd that there Is m entire i8cE ol tuln II tus
. c,;arres sud that they originated In malice nt1a
hatrt1. and are trumped up for fne INJURY ol
complainant Notwithstanding winch, tne cnm-
nittsee has reported TO the board Recommending
the discharge 1ru1n its employment OF complain
ant, the report being based upon the 1alse ano
aIt1ul statements oi Crane, his accuse4, ana tnc
beard, itself, was about 70 pfoeeeo :" o1se'iaas'
The complainant stated that be was also EN-
Iloyed BY defendant to sapentsnd me 5oP bp o. pa
Ioase and taaf be has in II resss gs5fott.sassa
his duty = IN Rt,ae WEE Is undertaking and
aTrsenCutr But certain eE1l-disposed pelsoass
.lamniainsnt respecting the last mentioned work
fttc CanTt House cxfcnson) and upon e parte
Statements OF such ey1l-dlsposed PelSons, ans NE
Superintendent, In violation Of the contract which
ii It should be done viii iniure bis reputation IS
sensns snd szea 59r Tbisa as y hsrsn hs
l,een guilty OF no misconduct, and the Boaf1 Of
Supervise being q entirely irresponsible, as .
bod, unless controlled oI GodEn h1 ol haa''s 1tep
The prayer OF The bill followed, that the board
and every member comprising the board shoult
ff1FF
interfering in any way, shape, or manner with
or from taking any action ~ regard 70 n.y. ans ~.
every member composing said board snaM oe en
joined from acting IN said matter, OF ToIlhs upol
The question Of The removal OF complainant, an
Counsel also read the bond Of complaint for th
faithful performance Of his duties. in the reaa
sum OF several thousand dollars signed by con-
piatnant, with Jesse n. Alien and Timothy n
III. Tree s1aIed that he scarcely knew how t
-argue hts demurrtr. The blu Of complaint Ws
.ceitainly curiosity in the history OF legal read
Was asked we're the most extraordinary ever sui
mitted to court Of equity Tor the eae1c1se o. II
restraining power He doubted Whethets esei TX
upon bill 60 entirely destitute Of the cleMents {
law necessary to its support The allegadon Va
he heating arpslatas az | d tne Court House lor sw
years, at liked salary, and That non u
Board Of Supervisors Threatened 70 disiniss con
In fhc Bin il it be sound law that the Supervisor
conld not notwithstaadng The contract asm.s asnns
ton would properly .lc against the pfopEietos9
the Sherman House to restrain them from dis
tie coaf, On its I equity side, might be invoked t
restrain his leaned friend, who appea1ed to sup
port the bill, from dlscha5ging his coos
m shs et saSaa aopant 0n sS.s st be aaa
her for specified time and vas about 10 dlscha1g
her upon insufficient evidence OF her want Of aoL
ts.ay ftfthf hQfan2a
become pTetudiced against her bJ reason Of th
Elanderons statements Of evil disposed person:
ihat tas touIt cur W would enter upon an inv4sti,atio
OF the evidence taken before the conmit1ee, tha
l. might be settled Whsther Il wxnlatsd tdc COZ
but counsel doubted whether that Was within N tn
duty Of TIC Cpurs, the more especs(A the con
: Board Of Supervisors could Affect the rshts 0
complainant under Il; II It were Invalid, then p
WRONG was done; and be 1t valid or invalid, tt
board has 3 right to dispense with his services 4
any ri1nc. u 1t would rake the I7sE OF 1esultin.
damages, which It might be thought better TO as
.emnluymeut Thc rule vas uniform In his parttcu
Lar, that where the law Afforded complete reneN
for the wrong done, equity would not interfere
established thai counsel would not cite author1tIe
70 support It, II least until authorities Tet
brought to con1overt It or TO sustain this remark,
BILE proceeding, which he believed came c1earl
within the rule. ...... 49,.
Counsel would, however, ca1l intention to iel
ecsude ts eazs HT ,q gu9Misd MsIdF o NJ the e
sne5 e n!nr nnd mre eas case ~ ooo NJ Ne
<:1nsc;i ns liz Of New Yors Tas about 70 pass an orI
MaEsn Hsifr9 1,nnnenv m tav down +r,rsa y
iaourTh arenMn n ~ IA Th;lty.seSond stree
Tho nn,fnhnrf. had s7Sradr npssed the Tnsrd {
Aldermen, and was before the Counciimen Con
plalnants alleged these facts, and ave1zed the
bss bssf it. ta55 a5a e Tie eoP 1asa ~eaa ss5a
pseIe sr5sus iii 1tse,f s,f the nr,rilece granted. n
1ntayyt1oN r, 1,ess the ordtnauce was NOT deniet
mI tH.r. vas no cxnrcss denial on the Part {
Tne rst,r7ad coroornt1on that It would avail itse
~ ~ Vii fiTen il nnder lie ordinance In thl
~ asa W +ns ronrt decded 1hat q cour1 Of eoulf
S~e.Ia m. intcrfc.r by Injunction, to restrain
nsa,IH; Mnna MI cnrnHa,n from passtna resojutio
~ nrfitnauc.: uzl,:ss tn q case where it appeare
-Iha5 fhc me-e vurfoo on md formal pass3ce o
Snrh T1.stJ1.in. ar i.rIIiuance would tnslantl,
thont n,iy action or atte,upt 10 enforce apy rjCE
nrit:f1c1c r.,;ier Il efIect an 1rreuedisble rr
Tatn inIngy
rnn1,se] read at 1euRth from the opinion In TIL
r,se hecause he ,et.rIed it decisive OF the case
hnr and 1tecause ii went at length into th
cTe7,ise Of he RESTRAINING mower Of the Court I
uTcrert n resolution of u publc bo1y from bein
VOID upon, and the result was that courts c
f1ulfy WON'T not in;srfere to prevent a CoIamo
fnunril or ny ananvy a Hoar1t Of Supervisor
frGm voting on r,.sHIi,tion for Tie REASON tl1f
no rpsnIuttt1u uass4ti i,y such boCy could atftt
The rEt1ts al q nar7v. il 1he marty hsI ans uude
n cnnfract Tic mere passape of a resolutiu
-s.nr.i T. 4. X. MarshaiI 1Ey.i b4. .aeci,jin
that whcfe the law affords
-.cofnnlete remedr for wrptlE don
couiIy will not u1tlpose TO prevent It's cornmlE
s1on, End that it is only where the wrong is lite
case whCTc the Trustees of The Town of Louis
vile having " their byc-law laid tax OF 500 O
each billiard table IN The town, Gwathney an