, 1875-11-10
MARTIN ScuLLY'S CASE.

JrDHE fA4wELL RLErsE8 u1M Az INJUNCTION.
In the case Of Martin AculIy, who elaine to be
Eicrk Of tho South Side Police Court by ysr,us
OF his election By tho people In 1879, against
La~ranco O'Drian, appointed by tho Msyor and
confirmed by the Common Council for ths nauo
poaltlon. aud In which Scally sued out an in
junction to restrain O'Dren from entcring upon
the duties OF said Office Judge Faruoll listenet.
to the argument IN tho chaacery branch OF the
circuit Court yesterday Afternoon.
Messrs. scatea and Hynes appeared for scully
and City'Attorney Jamioson for tho deleud.nt
representing tho Municipal Government.
Evidence "as introduced to prove tLo election
q e. scuIiy Ia; BY the people, and also to provo
*dmss.ed. Il waa shown that scully'
Initiating On Ills right to hold over Us Al elected
olllces' had Put III an appearance At the Po!ice
Goart to perform tho duties OF Clerk yesterday
morning, but was removed therefrom by snrgt.
EneIsold, acting on The order Of Justice Buul-
aoflleld ln regard to the demurrer to tI,s in
1nne.!ou hled BY the City Attorney, Mr.. scatos
Huoteu from nunurouB authorities to sA0w
ter. Ho cited the case OF two Common
Councils clRming to sct at tho same tins In
Fhl!adepbsh, when tho Court WAS compelled to
put M = ssop TO the confusion BY ontosniug one Of
upon the care. lie also alluded to South Caro-
!ias esae. Where certain County Commissioners
had boon enjoiued from carrying out a county
pro1eet because they were acting outside
o.,o =. .1o'f s aotaorsty. He also brought III
!and, cutting down Of tress and matters Of that
ktno, and held that tho Same laW governed this
peculiar case Of tsespaas At the bar, because the
pstltiooef bad = pFopertv right in tho Office
whsc1 waa invaded and usurped. He claimed
the right to cume into q Court of Chaucory for
tic purpose Of procuring an Injunction until Ina
merits OF the csso could 10 decided.
q, CHF-Atfotnoy Jameson. In reply. Maid that |
tLe pstitloner ses fo,th that O'Brien thfoa,ened
70 uauFp tAe ot'!co forcibly. Il wss absurd to |
sue out a. injunction on elel grounds. As we'll |
might Mayor Colvin sue out au injunction |
AGAINST me noMapape's that tarsateaed to have
WronRed' lie bad Ais remedy in law by psoceei.
ing for trespass against u'Isrian or The city. Il
*ab absurd to talk OF ~ Injunction In tho mat
Mr.. llynss differed fran, lia learned frieud
anu hoid tbst Il uas h fragrant case Of trespsss
- RFeg0nt which the Court ought to grant An
."5aneuon' Tue prorersy-r1Kht Of tho petit.on-
ssm "a "as :; 'nsadsd, and should be- protected Tue
ina Judsa thought lust ho had no tight 10 in
ss'lsse y. t Inc question was AZ to whether a por.
- ~. au E'aIt 70 certain Office. and it WAS not
~" ~ cue, CLARK 9t at inferior court was fear-
stelse of hsa rights. he could send m sny one vto
aa. u.eaaeiea VIII. him to Jail. aud thefe was no
ossss.oa 1os court Ut chsucery to Ipterfere and
reitaaps aecldo sgs,nat the zahtful owuer ia t,a
a. th.v ,ouia r. courts should attempt to do
r. ~ sasJ "oulu nase 10 tins to do ANYTHING elHe
Eanto. "@s " aao "af-
The motion for injunction ia, thsro,ors ov.,
~ ~ 80 sustained and tue bill dis.
!aken to'ths Supreme Court undst = ,'".a 'Iea ~
s2t0 10 cover ooRta. WV" !of I