The Weekly Arizonian., 1870-01-15

manner the claim is made. No more Is 1t made to arpsar how, either in law or in fact, these officers were incompetent to act as Auditors.
 It everywhere appears that the services for which these bonds and warrants had been { iren were duly rendered and received and ! is nowhere appears that the charges for thsss services, or any of them, were uulounded or excessive
 I, was nrged ou argument of the cause, and with apparent success, that even if tho ap- portionments O. 1866, 1867, anG 1868 could be utilities the acts passed thereuader no effect, and the organization ofl867 nugatorT as al-
 legged, that then as necessary legal slter- native all these would be va i'd under the Howell Code and in any event the members of the legislature are qualified ds tactO, and their acts valid and unquestionabls.
 Without eaborating thi. point 1t must be stated in its corro5oraticn that the same law never will, without the most helmiug ne- cessiiy allow, or recognize the suspension of paramount and co-o@dinate branch of the oyernment-deprecaling. as it does so ear ncsty, the probable evil consequences ot 80 lamentab!e condition.
 The conclusion, therefore, of nlI lhe farego~ ing is that the Injunction ssued in this case ought to be dissolved with stay of all proceed ings until the further ori,r of this Court.
 It was earnestly pressed on the argument in this case that the relatc was not and coud not be Attorney General, de .tacto, nz he Gesc ioos himself on the record-that office having been abolished before the institution of the same. This exception appears to be true, as matter of fact it has nowhere been denied and no attempt has been made to answerit
 Although this injunction ia dissolved for other reasons, this question must be ci.po1ed of as pertsans to the subject of costs.
 It may then be ed here as Rndeni- able legal proposition, that there can be no of dcer de .tac5o O an office which has been aboI- ehed and which. lheretors, has no existence All the definitions and descriptions ol officers de tacto, i. is believed. without exception, as- sume, ss an iudiSpenssb!e element, thc .eg4 existence of the office to which the holding I pertains Even tie lrarnei judge who ordered he issue of this ojunction ioes this in the case Of Nee ,Hrey ys Oury, before cited
 Prece dents upon lagal prolos'ion so ob Yious IS this would seem to be eAtireIT super- auous a few of the many extant may, however be appropriately cited.
 It has been ruled in New York, (lhbott's New York Digest, vol f 2G5) that "To con, sttute an officer de .tacto there rust br color of tile. A claim under an appointment of title to an office which by law is elective or claim under election to office which by law mrs St be filled by appointment, is no color of title and cannot constitute the claimant An officer de tacto, so that perjury can be assigned of an oath administered by him (Grceu e let. IS58-People vs. AI6ertsou, How. Pr. 368)
 Here follow two pages of reference which are of no interest to the ordinary reader, and which We therefore omit-EDrroR
 The rOlator, therefore, was not st the insti- ,ulion of this suit AttorneyaGenernl, de faeto
 In reference, finally to this exception it must be said that persons who claim to represent he government er reIatiUe, and who bring suits without legal warrant or proper instruc- lions, are as liable for costs ss any other class i 3f ltigants.
 The defendants exception, above Stated d may, as matters of practical interest, be thus I disposed of First: An injunction to prohibit a he payment of money in case embracing several defendants, would not necessarily be void because 1t was issued to and served upon only one of them-he having the sole and ex- elusive custody of the fund enjoined, and he alone able to make the payment prohibited. Such an injunction is, ia effect, an Injunction against them all Those not served, however is believed, may come in a any tune and move its dissolution; Second On n his exception, it will be perceived the case is h iecidedin favor the defendant; Third. Stat u ltory oaths and atiidavits, ought to be literally y olIowed in practice; Fourth, This exception las been ruled ia favor of the defendant: Fifth T The clerk being, as he is, the proper custodian If the records and seal eff the court, can prop-