The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1876-09-30
THE COURTS
Sunrelne Court.


,nrs Of the Supreme Court during the past wee
have been oral arguments IN important case'
The first of these arguments TOOK place on Fl
d.v afternoon last. The cases numbered on Tn
docket from 90 to 115, are Cook county tax cases
which seem to involve several questions OF coz
siderable interest throughout the state and ais
involve the question whether Cook county is III
der township organization. They were argue
by E. Roby, ESQ.,, for appellccs, and j. NJ ROM
tree for appellants, as two cases. The frst SET
cases were suits for taxes Of 1871, brought in Tn
county court at the February term, 1873, an
taken by appeal to the circuit court under Tn
law of 1872, and pending in that court July
1874, when the general law controlling count
courts and appeals from county courts tool
effect.
MR. RcBY, FOR APPELLANTS, ARGUED
that section 122 provided that appeals may b'
taken from the county court to the circuit cour
in all cases except those mentioned In the iol
lowing section, and the next section expressly
mentions suits for taxes, that exception oper
ates as an express prohibition of such appeals
TO the circuit court, and this statute, coming In
10 force July l., 1874, was repugnant to that
authorizing appeals to the circuit, and repealed
it, As the constitution gives the circuit courts
original jurisdiction in certain matters and APP
pellate Jurisdiction only in such matters as are
provided by law, the appellate Jurisdiction de
ponds upon statute, and such statute must be
an existing and valid law at the time the juris
diction is exercised. Having been repealed in
these case by repugBancy, there existed no law
under which the circuit court could exercise
Jurisdiction as an appellate court, or render any
Judgment. The powers Of the county board in
revising the assessment and their practice was
also discussed, Mr. Roby holding that the Board
was tribunal for remedy for excessive taxation,
and that the Board must act upon such questions
in open session and could not refer it to com.
mittee. He argued also at some length that
Cook county is not under township organization,
Chicago.
MR.. RoUNTREE,
in reply, argued: The main point relied upon
by the appellants counsel for a reversal of the
Judgment is, the legislature in passing the coun-
ty court act, which took efcctJuly /, 1874 there
by repealed the section Of the revenue law
which allowed appeals to the circuit court, II
the latter act was so repealed it was by implica
cation. Repeats by implication are not received
eddy announced that principle. This court has
expressly decided in the case in Fowler VS.. Per.
kins, n ILL.,, that the county court act did not
repeal the other statute.
IN regard to the Boards practice OF equaiz-
ing the assessment, he replied that the assess
ment upon which these taxes were extended,
was an assessment made by direction of the old
board OF supervisors, but was directed by the
county board pursuant to the act of Feb 30 1872,
and was equallzed by the county board pursuant
TO law. Individuals we're not entitled to appear
before the county board at that time, and make
but the duty Of the board was to
equallzc between the towns alone. Individual
complaints were not allowed to the county
board until the last general revenue law became
operative.
The cases involve large amount of taxes
over 81, 5OO,OOO-and the opinion, which, 1t is ru
mored, will be had in week or ten days, is look
ed for with great interest all over the state.
The La Sale county Jail question also came up
IN the court this week, the case being reached in
The call, on Wednesday. Tho cause was ably
argued orally by II. T. Gilbert, Esq, for the Jail,
and Geo. s. Eldredge, Esq, for the supervisors,
against whom the action for mandamus was
brought The only point in the case Is as to the
discretion OF the Board; whether, when the jail
IS IN so bad d condition that it does not meet the |
ends OF justice, and the county is out of debt,
Ind able to build ii, the Board can put off the
question because the county is suffering with
he rest OF the world.
Mr. 1iioert cited numerous authorities to show
hat they have no discretion, when jail is ne
'essary and the county is financially able to
,uild one, as TO whether they will provide one or
rot; that their discretion consists in dctormin
ng the manner Of providing the jail, and not In
determining whether they will provide It or not
hat, even concedlng that the Board have a dis.
retion, the law is well settled that mandap,us
les to compel them to do their duty, when, as
this case, they have grossly abused their dis
dictionary power.
Judge Eldredge, in behalf Of the Supervisors,
.laimed that the power OF the Board was entire
y discretionary and presented an able and ey-
'sustive argument, both written and oral, dem
that the Board have the finances OF
county In their hands, as properly confded by
aw, and as they come directly from the people,
he tax payers, represent them, and know best
what the public interests demands. Besides,
he Board for the purpose Of information, caused
, vote 10 be taken at the last election, and the
people almost unanimously voted the new Jail
town; hence their refusal to vote new jail was
justified by their constituents.
County Court.
PROBATE
In the matter Of the guardianship OF Nellie
Durham, minor. Petition for sale Of real es-
tate. Report Of sale made and sale confirmed.