Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-09-21
Tie seventh Street Improvement I'm
Court.

PRoCEkDIEaS ON THE MOTION FOR INJCNC-
TioS-ARGUMENTs OF COUNSEL.
Yesterday, after our report OF the case of Mat
tinely ct al, against the District of Columbia
ct al bill Tor an injunction 20 restrain the DO ard
from issuing certificates Of Indebtedness for the
paving OF 9TH street, between Il street south and
the river, closed, Mr.. William A. Cook COM
nenced his ar gument for the defence, He said
that the diff Guilty in relation to the parties i'm
the case might be termed technical and there
fore, fail to be recognized at first in its fun inn
lortance. If these were net proper parties in
the cRse, the case could go no further. In reply
to the question whether those mentioned are
proper parties to the case, he answered unhes-
itatIDgly no. Each of the complainants are
owners of separate and distinct lots, not in
common, but a. individuals, and the assess
ments were separate and distinct and in
which the compliments had no common inter-
est. He held that the complaint must, therefore,
be rejected On the ground Of multifariousness
lie quoted many authorities on this point
The second demurrer 10 the bill, he said assails
ii on the ground Jhat il is ineluitable. first in its
ultimate purpose, which is TO assess ard collect
the amount OF expenses charged against the
property in question Tor improvements on 7th
street and its immediate vicinity. 1t is bill
presented to enable the comTiainants to escape
the payment Of any of the expenses of the i'm
provements. Its incidental aim is equally inc
quitable. IL is to reduce the arnount of assess
ment on the ground OF alleged Irregularities in
the manner Of the work and the assessment.
But when did court OF equity correct irregu-
larities in an assessment? No law book could
be touched by the other side to present such 4
case. II the point could be reached the auditor
| would not be the party TO make the required
investigation, because he has been and is connect
ed with all the acts of the board Of public works
Mr.. Cook quoted authorities on this point
among them that OF Judge Humphreys in the
four million loan case, and in the case of Rich
| ardson against the board of public works. which
| latter was dismissed on the ground that the law
| side oS the court presented ample remedies. So
| in THIS case, the compliments have ample rem
| edy by actions at law, and cannot claim an in
| terposition of the court in equity.
| The legal precedeEts upon this point were sc
numerous and clear that IL Is surprising that i,
! should be attempted to divert the course OF
| equity from its appropriate sphere to question.
which properly belong to the province of law
| Let these parties 60 to q court of law, il they
| dare, with their petit questions as to where The
| sewerage should terminate, and whether the,
should pay for Scharf pavement, or whether
l their drainage should have been arrested i'm
| pulsively on its way down 7th street before i
| poured itself into the Potomac. It was lttl,
else than an insult to the purity and the dignity
of equity to project case of this character int,
| an equitable tribunal.
l TO-DAY.
Mr.. Cook resumed his argument about noon
| and referred to q mass Of authorities, which ht
| read and cited and conteuded that the work was
notwithstanding the amounts of the bill salts
factorily performed.