, 1875-07-07
AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Cout then adjourned to o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr.. FrLLIn FEELS MArPr.
The Court resumed shortly after o'clock.
There was aghln only slim attendance, not
wthatauding tile fact thht Judge Dickey, who
has distinguished himself By tho doyerauce Of
an opinion against the abolition OF tho Board Of
Police. VAS to open tue argument for tho do
fendanta.
Mr. Fuller remarked. at tho opening OF tho
court. that ho bad one further objection to make
Tho bill alleged that quo rarranto proceedings
~cTo pending 10 test the question whotLer tho
net OF 1872 Was adopted or not. Since the In.
Junction ieauod q decision had been delivered
carving the demurrer from the frat replication
to tho third piss back to that plea. This was
substantially equivalent To 81 expression that
judgment Of ouBtcr would havo to CO.
hr. Tuley (eui!tng}-1t has NOT gonc Jet.
though.
Mr. Fullor-Cestaoly. 1t has not gone yo..
JUDGE plCEEY
then took the tloor. He said Two Questions vera
presented On tho demurrer to thla bill. First,
whether by Law tile Board Of To]co remained
lawful aud existing Board; and, second. ehether
tho caBe mado by the bill Was one which war
AkAsSA hA9 !AtVEfG4k1Ru VI AouGk Of AH4nCErG
BY tho nrlt ol injunction. A to the first quee-
tion, I's Honor would readily perceive. fron an
opinion Of his that Vas read by MIR. Fuller, that
1t would not DO proper that hs should embark on
it's diRcussion uutit he had encountered some ren-
Bons for chanRln! hia views In rotation to tho
law. Nllile Lis na.nd Wis opon I, conviction on
that question, hs bad not yet mat with any vews
or suggoationa thereon which would war
rant btm IN changing bis opinion. lie
would, therefore, leave that matter 10. tle
discussion Of bis AaaociAse oornsol. iIc might
Ia allowed, however, bsfoso proceeding to di+-
cuta tho question Of tln propriety Ut tue lntor-
vent!on Of 3 Chancellor III thia caae. to
COMMENT upoH REFLECTION
which wAH madc BY his learned friend In tola-
sfon to the action Of the Common Council. II
his opluiun had oeen read before counsel made
tllosa rcnarta thelr napps opsiatoncss md jis-
tice would have been more p.1pabfe; and 10
(Judge uickey) therefore iecldcd to call bis Hon.
OTIS attnution to tho fact tnat whiio 10 had Eisan
III that opinion statement Of big Vows. md tho
rcasons upon which bis position restod at
tho same time ho furniahei thcm with the
opinions aud Arguments Of others who dlGn,td
from him, mud stated t!Iat. although h.s Judy.
ment "aa 10 and 50 OH tho question. 70: Tho
qnortfou wAa not FREQ from debate. Iis 1iuuor
would perceive tLas there HAS no other manner
or mode IN which tho question ttero M ooted
could be ad1ndcated upon By the Court ravo by
tho action OF tue Common Couuci!; and if ia
tleir Judgment they deemed 1t wso that tho
Boa11 should ba superseded bv another class 1t
officers. tho onlr nude OF tcAsing their power
MAS by pasAlpy at, ordinance hnI pIocGnfn, t1
act. 40 that tho proper question might bs tr4cd.
As to tho
INTERVENTION or CHANCELLOR
the use Of that writ had done = graat dca! Of
harm, not only IN this country, but elsewhere.
Lord Holt had said the abuas Of it MAS 30 great
that he doubted whother moro harm had not
been done BY ita abuse than good had evsr boen
accomplished by It's uss. According to al tho
buoka i writ Of injunction Was only to isaue In
special cases, and was not . writ for general re-
lsaf Of all ktnda. Il WAS ~ osdoE lh4t ought 10
ba limited within proper sn1 tl1ea bounds. Ut
COURSE it might BE- difficult for = lAw-sriter or
]urist to prescribe definitely boundary beyond
which the powar Of tho court should not 20, bo-
catiso cases might arise which 40 human mind
could anticipate, snd tho boundary, II 1t worc
cast iron or arbitrary, might deprive tho courts
Of tue reet OF the wr,t in proper cases. Dnt
that general boundary should be mRda and
RreRt caution observed IN aeeing 1t MAS not Dror-
stopped, WAs Proposition which would bo aGrcel
70 w oyeTy onowho had reelected on tho subject.
uo fnBsted thst iu thls particular case tuere Al
NO FOUNDATION FOB THE INEKDxknTioa or
CHANCELLOR.
Tho foundation Of tho bill was = moro apptc.
hcnson. It was not alleged that m, ,thipg laA
tho Boards poxor, preeumiug that 1t was sttlI III
exsseoco. It prayed thai tho defendants might
b onjoned and rest. -.nod from proceeding IN
apT way In tho execution Of the orlinAuce, or
tastorencs with tie orators in tho dsscharse OF
their dateh. Assn ming the hypothesis On y hicl,
NJ. Fuller Based bis ca4a, thst tue law Of
ls72 dll not abolish the rollco noarl, and
the Council had passed VOID ordinance.
VA Tho passage Of = vojl ordinance sufficient
foundation fos sucA luteryepslon7 Certainly
not. Whit osl Of harm wAs to bo prarsntod by
ne in1nactlonf Wss austhlug appreleudad for
which the1o wAa 20 fenedF 1t Law z II wAH not
necessary 10 Undertook to say, shat something
might be- dons In pursuance at tho ordnance
which might properly be eutoluou. No such
condition OF thugs hkd been reAuAed. Tho 1no1o
appointment Of = City Mar.hAl would not war
fsns the issuance Of : writ of Injunction. An.
10 tnoa b, quo *arssnto. Tho other slde said
SUCH acslon might produce conH.ct Of turtsd,c-
tlon' Il might. or 1t might not but sufficient
fos thS e.. Day W. tho evil thereof. Whcn-
ofeF taae coahot occurred. 1t WAS time
en9nGh s,n To- r. app!y tor 70 Injunction. There was
nothing 10 tas bill showing that any specific
irfepat.o!o damage would ba avoiiod BY tlo
in3anosson' This act OF tho Court was liko en-
Court could not pass. repeat, at anleud ~
ordnance; these woTo puflacal acts and could !
only 20 porfotmed by tho Council aud we1o |
ss.s "nSh ~ 10 0oauceor bad aver get iuerferod
Judge Dicksr shsa referred to tho authorities |
cited " counsel ou tho other side witI reIur- |
saco to Tue !attxdlctioa Of the Court, showing |
were not political acts, usfora "a tuiusa,;oss
could tssue In such oaas 1t ,nuat be Shown dis-
t'uclly thoEo wAs no rsMsdY At law. and that tha
injury feared was one which could not otLas. |
wlso be prevented. IIe commended no case bad |
boen presented analogous to this. IL tue Ctr
Mar hal wore Illegally appointed, tho Court !
could oust sne ol1oer from tbs exercise OF any |
function not conferred on him By law, After
citing ssseral op!utoos In support Of hls vlsws,
Judge pickeJ cohtuded bY a8ain dlreottna |
his Noaofs sttsnt!on 70 ths oirounastanoas
under *h!sh tha opinion nssa aaAtuss him W.
prApAxAd. III vANtAA th& anAskpn takaa -