Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1878-04-03

Nc Councll ana the Recorder, In no
h keeping correct records of its pro
, ceedings, is too thin and far fetch
u ed for the purposes of justice. A
l. well might the claim be made tina
y the Prosecuting Attorney is re
Q sponsible for the proceedings of tn,
: Board of Supervisors, or the AT
torney General of the State for tn,
" proceedings of the Legislature, a.
u to charge the City Attorney witt
e being responsible for what the
+ Council may or may not do, when
!, he is not asked or consulted in re-
lation thereto.
Mr.. Turnbull seems to lay great
stress upon the fact that suit was
S tried before Judge Green in Oct,
e 1874 and by him decided against
, the city, which involved the same
questions which were involved in
the Denton suit. Now | differ with
Mr.. Turnbull in that matter. In
that suit the proof as l am inform
ed and believe to be true was. that
the plaintiff paid the money direct
ly and personally to the City Mar
shall, upon the demand of the Mar
shall, he supposing and believing
the Marshal then had with him and
in his possession, warrant for the
immediate arrest Of plaintiff. if
payment should he refused, and
plaintiff paid the money to avoid
an immediate arrest of his person.
while in the Denton suit, the proof
was that plaintiff was served with
two written notices, and the City
Marshal verbally notified him that
if he did not pay the lcencr, he
would be prosecuted; that he then
went to the Recorder, who told him
the same thing and that he there
got the time extended, and then
paid the same under protest to
avoid being prosecuted, and also
claiming the ordinance was illegal,
and he would get it back if he |
could. The whole question and |
discussion Of these cases. turned !
upon the question as to whether
the money was paid under compnl-
sion or not, or as it is termed more
generally, was the payment volun-
tarilly or involuntarily made by
Plaintiff In Oct, 1874, the case
of the city of Detroit vs.. Martin,
deceased, at the June term of the
Supreme Court, in 1876, and re-
ported in "a Mich, which discuss
ed that question had not been made
and in my judgment that case was
decisive in the Denton suit, and
sustained the principles contested
for by the city. But Judge futile
took different view of the case,
and decided againt the city. The
points discussed and settled in the {
case of Detrpit VS.. Martin, above
referred to, were not raised or dis J
cussed before Judge Green, and l q
can not see how Judge Green's Z
ruling can help the Denton suit. I
unless the facts and points raised i
md discussed in each were the L
same. Let each case stand or fall
IN its own merits as made on the
rial. 6
Mr.. Turnbull also states, cit was &
agreed by all parties concerned in a
he matter that one suit should de- a
ermine the whole matter as far as b
he Circuit Court was concerned" D
Ilso further in his article he says p
Now | state as matter of fact, r.
bat these twelve suits could not n
ave been appealed to the Supreme b
>ourt at any less cost than 500 a u
nit, this would make 81 ZOO, and b
{ the city got beaten in the APP Il
,ellate court, an additional cost Of b
so suit would have been impos- Il
d on the city" Now | do not II
gree with Mr.. Turnhull in these p
and state that they are 81
OF true or in accordance with the b.
acts as | understand them, and W
bat the statements so made by him ca
re misleading and made with the IN
ltention of misleading the public pr
] regard to the situation. The g
lain facts are these: The Denton Ell
nit was commenced in the spring su
1877, and at that time a stipula- er
on was entered into by the attor- tv
eys for Denton and the City At an
,rney, that certain other claims, an
hich Denton's attorneys claimed
} hold for collection, involving the an
me questions, should abide the by
ecisions in the Denton case, with tn
1T a suit afterwards, and about d,
lie first of September, 1877, KEEL TT
y d. Clayberg, as attorneys, began as
even suits against the city upon da
e same matter, some of the plain sal
us named being named as parties pr
the first stipulation. After is to
e was joined in said cases, stip- col
alton was entered into that pro- tut
ded latter reciting the names Of the
e parties plaintiff and defendant yo
III the court) as follows: at is sui
'reby stipulated and agreed Ivy the
e parties in said above entitled the
use by their respective attorneys, pa
at said causes shall each and all pr,
ide the court Of the suit hereto tie
re commenced in the Circuit hol
'urt for the county of Alpena by $50
mes +. Denton vs. the city of -
pena," then followed the further
pulation as to the amount Of
thot eL1,,1l - Il. Al IN