The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1874-08-15

ti0unl--Ihe Legislature no rover ia
wake DETERMINATIONS.
In the district court of Harris county
Yesterday, the following important
opinion was delivered on the recent
sock law passed by the fourteenth
legislature;
Henry Cook ct ais. VS.. David lnb-
hook; suit In district court, Harris
county, July term, 1874
OPINION.
This is "A suit brought by plaintiffs
tbutchers) against defendant, inspector
If cotton and hides In and for Harris
county, An Injunction was obtained,
and plalntitls now ask to have said in
junction perpetuated. Defendant moves
10 dissolve the injunction and dismiss
the bill The general rule Is that, upon
coming In Of an answer denying the
whole equities Of the bill, the injunc-
ton Is dissolved, as OF course
I'm this case the material allegations
Of plaintiffs petition are denied 10y de-
PENDANTS answer. But the parties
have substituted the case upon ~ writ
zen statement of facts and the state
ment of facts vary in several imp0r-
lant particulars from the averments OF
the answer. From the facts agreed TO,
II appears that the defendant claims TO
charge for the inspection of cattle, and
then charge the butcher who slaugh-
tiers the cattle another inspection fee.
| do not think the act entitled IAN
act to encourage st0ck-raising, and for
the protection of st0ck-raisers," APP
proved March ., 1874, will admit of the
construction given it 10y defendant.
The object of the act was not TO create
and multiply fees for the inspector I;
nor do suppose 1t was the purpose OF
the lawmakers to impose burtbens
upon the owner or dealer in cattle and
hides by allowing double fees for one
service, nor to require the inspector to
do over again the same work
merely or chiefly in order that he
could thereby realize more fees.
If the beeveG slaughtered by plain
tiils had been inspected by defendant,
and he had charged for that service,
and had given the certificate required
by the law, all that he ought to do af.
ter the hides had been taken from the
cattle, is to be satisfied rs to the iden-
tity thereof. For this purpose, per-
hams, he might if he desired, examine
the hides. but he would have no right
20 charge again. The butcher would
have the right TO deliver the hide deal
nr The certificate of inspection of the
cattle on foot, and If not satisfied with
the dealer,s assertion, the inspector
could verify the identity of the hides
by an examination thereof, hut would
not have the right to charge again the
fee. except. perhaps, for the certificate
fifty cents.
Plaintiff. URGE several grounds against
tha constitutionality of the act; one
that If il in violation of the provision
thnt "taxation shall he equal and uni
form" 90 not unuers'all' .'ia' l,U-
vision OF the constitution 70 nav ais
bearing upon me case, iot .ne quos'" ~
OF taxes does noe - any ior'ii eli'e' NJ !,
10 the purpose OF ire Jaw; NO YAK -
laid or attempted 10 ne laiq uo 'ioV
doubt the power OF lhe ies'sis'Nre W
provide for the Inspection VI eat,m
hides, cotton, wool OF ahy!hinS tnaV
might require Inspection III ,' orue' w. W
protect the purchaser, VI .lio Wv no', w. w.
compel JUST Welghts or hleas',ivs ~ t p
given, and IL IS periectly co.hpe.enI w.
make the article pear inc enpe,,se' o"'
the idea OF taXabioii IL nol ih.o'tSui
The act uhder uisc'ss'oi ~ n's;S
penal ia iiS chh'ac.ei, W. ~ go 49," T.
f@sty-four' Sooue one-na,i .,'o '1a; 70 o 70
xesnpted nom MS opeiu.ion, :. a.,
of, use against llie inW, u I Ma"r;a
thinv, are Done or ohtilleu in iiai' ~.
mr. EeIv. St9a counties, pul ITO oi'eilse !, Nv
81, ;ftha >njs lining DE zone vi o'i'i'T
Tod in For, Belld OF hhanipers' \
name these IN rBtieS merely ny way VI
iIhstration, II NG@ Saipe thing peuote
t;ftv Fact west of we harsis county
linz thare ia no VIC. %lVn " 'ne Ia"
Int Let II he done titty-, We ice. e""'," " :
tha iau 10 vioiated @e meiciia''
49, dnH '"m T, ,J IN uouston or Calves,
ton 6uys saw one hundred u"s,6s, anu y
nna,ecfv 70 obtain from the "@nSi u
hI7 Of sa,e dmlv certified to, VA ~
randars himself liable to a n We ~
not loss than g. 600. and it may IN
ns ,,nob as s1O oOO. hut a merchant
in pronhom Hempstead, Navaso-
10 T',iar bocl,norf and numer-
nns otIer towns, NAV buy with impu-
n ~itv and violate no law. Washington
any E E counties are in the same
ind;niai district Judge McFarisad
wonlJ otto that in Brenham it was an
" " known TO the law for Il mat ia
woshinDton county to buy cattle or
,';1 a' ,.,;,Innt Il ref ohtainine a bill Of
IL,
sa'e .neue' Ho ' ,rn,',d h.ye 70 tell them
th", a ~ =" norson in Foyettc bought
qua. II dt;ohhnr cattle ar hides. and
ro, n, ,,a Az - take :, bill of sale, he vio-
levi it oit tho law w and tbe iury would be
la.eo oiie Jaw, ""d :" verjict of ouiItv
con,pei'eu W , re"I mani at NOT less
ana iiN 'ne pum.s ,han s,0o for eacl,
t man -" i nor 81 nn ',rchssed
hiT a OF cow 80 ip,rd i u 81 such a Inv can
tn h. LIT hat,ar illustrated. Ii can not he