The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1876-02-02
II. a. Beard VS.. Board of Supervi-
sOrs of COIfax COunty...Number
Opinion of the Court 5y SIMRALL, J.

This was an action of mandamus, brought
by plaintiff in error, to compel the BoarC
| OF supervisors TO levy tax to pay certain
warrants drawn upon the County Treasu-
rer, : against the teachers fund" The al
tentative writ set forth the nature of the
/ realtors right, and the relief sought, The
! return stated that when the Board met, in
July, 1874. and made the levy of taxes for
that year, the County Superintendent of
Education hao not fled his annual report
nor had the Auditor of Public Accounts
made the" apportionment of the four mill
school tax as teachers fund, hence the
Board had NO data upon which to estimate
the deficit in this fund. Also, that when
the relator made application to the ard
which was In October, 1874, it had exhaust
ed its power of taxation, as limited by act
April 4, 1872, that is with the State tax
added, $25 on the 81 900 of assessed value.
The relator made motion on this return.
for peremptOry writ. Held:
L. AT common law the return to the alter
native writ was accepted as true In that
proceeding, ard the relator was left to his
action for a false return, when. if successful
in that action, he was then allowed a per-
emptory writ. But Sl,520, Code of 1871, in
tends that there may be issues in this, as in
an ordinary action.
LII. LII, instead of controverting the re.
turn, the relator makes motion for per-
emptory writ. he admits the return to be
true, and presents the le gal question wheth- |
er it is sufficient answer
III. The act OF 1873 requires the Auditor /
to apportlon the common school fund bv |
the first Monday in April, and the County |
superintendent by the first Monday in |
July to make report showing estimates of
the deficit, If any, in teachers fund Tins
It the law is complied with, the Board OF
supervisors should have before il the data
necessary in laying this tax. Ii such in
formation was not given, the Board cannot
De chargeable with neglect of duty
~ lie was evidently intended that the
AK TO make up the deficit in this fund should
De laid by the Board of Supervisors At
he session appointed for the levy of taxes
or general purposes, which is the first Mon
lay OF July of each year (9l372), and on
allure OF the Board to meet at that time
hen at meeting to be called by The Pre,I-
ent as early as practicable (St373 Code of
o'D. 1t Is plain the law does not intend
nat the Board should lay tax for one
urpose at one session, and for another mr. s
'ose at another session. The July session
the time indicated for the LAYING the :
Ounty taxes. ~
v: The Limitation imposed by the act Of
-prlI 4, 1877, and the limitation of 62O53 d
Que Oh 1911, on Boards of Supervisors are y
OF repealed by the 10Th section of the act {
1873; the latter statute is not rennunant
} the former ones, and all of them stand in |
'rce. ''''iiu III r.
' L. Inc Court suggests a doubt as RI q
hether these warrants as evidences of the '
ann were OF such high and Conclusive II
lai acter as 10 entltle party 20 a writ OIL
ahdamus TO compel the levying OF A fay i,
III as the point was not IN ade in the case ~
e Court refrained from expressing an
'lhioh on this question. affirmed.