Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1871-04-22

Of the Bill removing the county seat IRON
Shepherd.town 10 Charles'o~n. AZ was
| remarked by Mr.. F.ulkner, on the trial Of
the cause, i, 10 question not only affect
mo the interests Of .he people of Jefferson
county. bu, vas OF vial importance 10 The
/ neople of The State. we therefore publish
bis Ilonor's opinion in full {:
JOHN u. STALEY, Ell. al.
| Us.
LOGAN OSBORN. ct. al.
In me bill and amended bill in this case
filed by said SIsley. David BlIlmyer, B..
| F. Harrison aud six others, in behalf OF
Themselves and others, similarly situated,
complanants aver ma, they are ciizens
and lax payers of Jefferson county-resl.
dents and owners of property 10 and near
Shepherdstovn, where by Acts OF Janua.
~ 26, 1865, and February Is, 1866. the
county seal Of SAID County is legally 10.
Gated, and that they are parties. plalnnh
and defendant in suits now pending anc
undetermined in the Circuit Court OF said
County. That defendants named as
Commissioners in an Act claimed by
them 10 have been passed on the 23d OF
February, 1871. for The removal OF The
county seal from Shepherdslown 10
Chsreslovn, in SAID county, are about
to remove from the former to The latter
place, the books. records. &C.. and other
wise carJy into operation said supposed
Ac, of February. 1871. That al the
tine of the alleged passage Of said sup
posed Act. the Senate Of West Virginia,
by law and in fac. consisted OF twenty
Two members legally elected thereto. and
tina, on the final vote in The Senate only
eleven affirmative votes were cast for said
Act. which being less Than a majority oil
| all the Senators elected, that under The
provisions of the Constitution said Act
did not pass The Senate and is moi a law,
and conlers no authority on defendants 10
carry into operation lls provisions and
tbs, TO allow them 10 do sO. will greatly
deprecia,e The value OF the said property
| of Compliments Ell. ais. and unawiully
,ubjec, them to great inconvenience and
! loss 10 attending Court at Charles,own,
and by such illegal removal Of ihe county
seat. render vold anything said Court
may do in their said pending causes 10
their injury. &c. &C.. and so prayed and
Obtained an injunction.
Defendants 10 answer. deny ihsta the
time named. the Senate consisted OF tween.
~ two members elected thereto. and aver
! that al least one Senator had therefore re-.
signed, and HE vacancy ihus created still
existed, thus reducing the number TO
tveniy-one. They dlsclsim all kno"l-
! edge of The number OF Senators who voted
on the final passage OF the bill in ques'
ton, and require proof if The fact be ma
| terisl aud pertinent; but submit, that this
question cannot be enquired into in This
case. Defendants also submit, that Com
psinan,s have no right TO institute or
prosecute lhi. suit and proceeding.
Con plsiranis bv replication. deny that
q, The time IN question one OF the Senators
had resigned. and submit lha, it one or
more had resigned. srlIi ubder the Consu.
,ution, twelve affirmative votes IN the
Senate were necessary 10 pass the Act /;
! and upon this stale Of the pleadlngs and
| the EXHIBITS filed. and without other EVIL
dencc. The defendants move 10 dissolve
the Injunction in vacation.
The amended bill was submitted and
filed after The filing Of defendants answer.
and The first argument on ssld motion. ln
The subsequent ergumen, some objection
was made by defendants Counsel as 10
time Of filing the same. but upon The au-
ihorlies, and circumstances of this case,
| aud especially as the object and interest
| of all The parlies, would be suhserved by
so presenting the case as tina, The one IN
porlsn, question OF The validity, or rather
the existence or non existence OF the Act
in question should be promptly and de-
fnltely settled and determined said OBJ.
! jeclIon to filing was overruled. AZ 10
whether conplsinan.s may or can insti'
lu,e and maintain this proceeding, what
aver doub, may have existed in the case
q. made and presented by The original
bill with the additional allegations OF The
amended bill. We think ihsteven upon the
authority of Dooliule We. Supervisors OF
Broome county, Is n. Y. reports l55
and The cases therein endorsed relied on
by defendants, complainanls are entitled
on the case presented TO be heard in this
! Court. They aver interests 10 be affect
ed by the proposed removal which are
no, common to the citizens Of the County
or community. Besides the alleged de-
! probation OF The value OF their individual
properly. which can be common only 10
those in their immediate locality at most,
their convenience and interests as parties
to SUITS actually pending in The Cour, TO
be removed, are much more direct indl-
vidual and personal Than the interests Of
other citizens who may, or may not have
occasion soon TO re'or, 10 proceedings in
said Court. Leaving out OF view the al.
,hnrity Of the cases referred 10 in lst. Sd,
18Th. 18Th and 10th Bsrbours S. c. K,
(sone OF which nninIaln the right Of any
taxpayer. &C.. to maintain suit which
cases The Court IN said cause OF Doolitile
vs.. Supervisors, &C.. override. qualify or
restrict and taking as authority only The
cases 10 tina, case sustained and approved,
| they establish the principle that though
the matters in question aztec, the public
generally. still if especially injurious to