, 1874-12-13

clslon in 81 Illinois, 130, and 81 Illinois, 1A-
On the other hand, the Town Board is only an-
thorized to examine aud audit and make certi6-
Gates OF claims (Secs. and p. 1.03l, Of Hurd's
Statutes). Moreover, the tnx assessment for old
claims would be illegal as made on cIaiua for
which there has nos been any certidcation made,
as the Town Board has not certified to all claims.
The Court said that the piuch In the case was
VIII ether the S33, ,000 was . part Of the 945, 900
ass essed BY the Town Board. But it was not il
legal for the County Board to allow part of the
assessment Of the Town Board, and whether
they put in come outside items was another
thing. But that it the Council could show that
the assessments of the County and Town Boa-os
Wera for different matters he should allow him
to show it. But it would not. in his opinion,
make any difference how the certificate got from
the Town Clerk to the County Board. Il the
Town Clerk only sent up part OF l1s assesB-
meuta, tue tax could not be enjoiutd because it
was not large enough
rambling interchange Of opinions then en-
sued between the counsel on both sides and the
Judge. with view Of obtaining the different
views Of all parties concerned, but no arsuuen:
WIS made by Nleesrn. Rountree and Hopalns.
who appeared for the defense Finally, Jn1Eo
Falweil remarked that he did not think it proper
to block up the wheels Of Government because
Of sorae little Irregularities in some OF the pro-
ccedinGs. 1t was not valid objection that the
County Board had nos extended the full amount
Oh certified by the Town Board unless the COM
plainant could show that the items which made
up the 333, 900 were totally different from those
coulpri.ed in the "a, 900. He would not allow
40 injunction on doubtful items, but would al
low the complainant TO amend il be chose.
Mr. Evans. Oh benaif of the complainant, 7aid
he did not lutend to amend, but would like lit
tie 1inae to confer with tho county authorities.
And tue Judge, therefore, refused tho motion
for injunction, but with leave to amend If coun-
sci desired.
TIE CHICAGO ! SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.
Judge Moore decided the motion to dissolve
tho injunction in the case Of Brown ys. The
Chicago g. Southern Railroad Company
aud the Danville d Vlncennes Railroad
aud RAILWAY Companies The argument occupied
nearly four days lsss week. complainant insist
ing that the road owed him large amount, and
that the only reu,edv be hsd was to keep II lien
Ysncennes Railroad Company had only agreed to
pay the interest OIL the Cn1ca9o l. Southern Rail-
road bonds consideration for tho lease OF
that road to them The defendants on the other
disputed and only amounted to about So, 900. and
that he had no standing in court Of equity un-
til he had first established some claim at law
Judge Moore declined to pass on all the ques-
tions presented, but remarked that he did SEQ
how q continuation Of the injunction could as
road would try to get the value OF its lease back,
but that was right md he therefore dismissed
tue injunction as to the Chicago, Danvl1le d.
Yiucenncs Railroad Company, which restrained
it fr1m taking possession.
THE nLAKxs AGAIN IN COURT.
AIrB Christipa Blake filed d bill Yesterday in
tho Circuit Court, against her husband Batnum
Blake, asking for a divorce on the ground OF
cruelty and desertion. Mrs. Blake states that
she was married to the defendant in July, 1851,
and lived with him until June, 1870. wnen he
drove her from his house and their children,
without any reasonable cause for suck Conduct
Immed1ately after, she charges, Mr. Blake, with
rev Of iuiu1ipg her reputation, filed bill
against her tor divorce, falsely charging
her with unchastty This bill, as 1s
we'll known, was dismissed, and on
appeal to tue Supreme Court tho decree OF tbs
Superior Court VAS ath1msd. Mrs. Bake allegea
in Lis conduct, aud that 'he strove with all Ills
mower as yitucys for about three davs to make
out his case, but unsuccessfu1ly"
Mis-. Biako claims that her husband. BY his
own admission. IL worth upwards OF s5OOQO:
that he lives in q tiue hou-o IN Winnetkn, !. and
fares sumptuously every day, which fether the
sunptuous fare or tho housed ia worth at
least sa5, OVO." Further, it is alleged that
Mr, Bake has recently transferr-
ed an available piece OF property on
Washington street to lis soc-in-1aw, one .'Boet-
wick, worthless fellow" with the intent of de-
f1audiue her. She has had by the defendant five
children' and sho charges thas her husband has
tried to preiudlce them against her, and that he
ia unit to have the care Of the three youngest,
At Ioss:. Wherefore. shs prays that she may
hava n divorce. auitabIe almony. and tho care of
hcr th,ee vounoe.t ciuidran- a,;d that Mr. Biake
he reatra;ned from -elline or disnosing OF hia
nrnnertv or ,ncumberine il IN any ray.
HEAVY powEn SER.