, 1877-02-10

position. What would be the consequences II
petitioners position was sutta!neda Ihe .loor
would he opened for thr review Dl the decisions
u public ot!furs simply upon general nllcEa-
tlot that they hal not exercised reasonable
discretion. \ n,an,lAmn. roull only take effect
II IN ctllrcr had refused to ast. There wa. M
decd, fhcts were admitted whtct fnEly sustained
the action OF that atllcial. Counsel went On to
discuss tho question 1T tho amount nj tH'nI
. ufEs f. a. the tsspx est esfe ss %ss
the circumstances. But. taking anr view Of the
allegations. there wns ahnn'lant room for the
sxclec Ut judgment nIhl discretion Oh tho part
OF o ING p sp'fx.e' VIZ tseue &C f II ' ttonef III nsf,
tl,erc VIVA vacancv IN the nf1!cc, wh!ct, was
rrcatcd F.c fncio by ills failure to ayc s;'s'i.
ttcnt bonii within the time rsA.tse:l BY Inv.
Tnrrc,ls, sl.e decision being clchr md explicit
on TINT l,otnt. 1t tho office wns not vacal,t
alter the expiration u tho tight Ays, when did
It become racants The q,,cstion, to ',o deter
compelled to sign bond presented nftcr tho
Time liked by the statute.
yin. FULLER
followed for the petitioner, addressing himself
simply to the inquiry as to what .lc .lutS was.
lnf The supervisor t!at1 tn pcrfnrn,, and
whether he rnull 1,c controlled IN thr
t!lscl'arKc of that ,luy, t'y aah'iamus. II
the tntx "a; 49,. mt,,eerfaf; tc5c ,, VIZ u.
discretion wnt rc,n.et In ttc officers, rl,nuli
tcrc be nsl at'lse Of tito isrrettots sctfc r0ntt
,lso II: obtained through II writ Of manlamrs.
"a 10 tho question ut II vac"nty, there Wat ttO
admission thnt tho first lnnd WIS not good
onc. They e'utnlei THAI It was gnnl aud sut!l-
ctcnt. hut Tint WIS entirely iulsaaterlaf. Mr.
interfere BY tnanlanut, and Tint, as the Super.
ra.c In which s.,rll rrfci should lie granted.
~ . 80 ~ Afr. IT,, 1..
xi*trl of a rccapIlulaiI.n', hacked NJ with few
lnore authorities, Of the position he tuOk fst tho
furmcr e,tc. liz custcslics1 That the duty Of the
Supervisor wa* ministerial, an.l tl.at 1ao had arbt.
:o.,rl t,aI Jurisdiction IN iii. matter, aud sll.
cic,t grounds lta,l appeared for Its Interference
ly iaatnla,nup. II Thu mnnla'!,,is tli. not gu,
The taxes ro''ld int he collected, at'd tho town
l,c placed in iii embarrassing l,osftsur.
Atr. uerrtck mastc the cln>ing argument for
defendant. liz repeated thai hi power rcpo4cd
In lhe Supervisor waa discretionary, mud, - far
ns thit Irnccc'ling was concerned. was Of such
sl.olih not attempt to control t'F h1anttatnus.
They were met by these two propositions: First,
TINT ct,lectlllG this power to bc ot Judicial
or ,llserrt ttonary character, there was sort Of
determine wlcthcs legal md proper discretion
had been exercised: unl, second. that tho Sill
perytsot, IN acting u,Ha this bond, was perform
Ing ministerial duty, md was subject to the
q tl,c first proposition, two authorities from
New York were cited. lfe was free 10 a,1mit
that In tho earlier decisions III New York they
ha4l departed fron, tho strict rule on this sub
jec., anil ycnturcti outside Of their Jurisdiction
In their attempts to control Inferior tribunals;
hut when they found that mistake had bccn
| male, They rstraced their atcps, and tho very
authorities WHICH so'ntcl hau cited tad been *.
Statc. After citing authorities to bear this
settlement out, t,o speaker en!d, Will. regard
10 the second proposition. TINT Il an officer re~
Gnt t eoad no. not t til lin! 1 what M III dRnens IL
Should render, OF what he should DO. The 9th.
] er h1lc had replied upnn thu general statement
! IL their realization that tho Supervisor hal
abused Ills discretion. and upon that they asked
tic Court to sub.n,lt qucstipn Of faet to q Jury
and hare q percmptory mandanus ltsltel: The
| question at fssue was nothing but conclusion
Ut Law. Counsel Lad not defined what thr Su-
not acted arbitrarily: lie had obtained what Iu.
formation lie could NJ tn thu qualifications Of
tho suretirs. Tho iirse bond was not up
proved beeat,sc Of iasut'fciency Of tic
was refused under tls different standpoint the
aeter It was in the discretion ot tie Court
| whether tho manda1nus should bc grantetl, 1t
must be made out to justify It.. This eoutro..
ycrsy i.ai iastclt for considerable tilnc. and
the collection Of taxrs delayed thereby. Il the
1naniuurls w,!S refused lie l,ad no doubt tile
Iow1 l'oanl would mike m appointment: an'i
that the t',aN they appointed would be the legal
Collector. Thu collection Ut taxes would then
| proccss! II otilrr oIif :ers did their duty.
| str. Fuller ra4led attention to several new
casca bearing Oil the subject.
The Caurt-1 do not .prapose to decide this
case hcinre Mnn,lay. II las hpeu suggested
row, hut tl!ere will te IN trou1!c. abu,lt that,
| tlrGslttue, They will u0t net: Mr.. Lincoln, If