Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1879-01-14
PACIFIC COAST T.
ESPECIAL TO THE EUREKA DAILY SENTINEL.
CALIFORNIA.
Manlamus from the Supreme Court.
BONANZA FLOOD COMPELLED TO TESTIFY.
BODIE DECLARES A DIVIDEND.
ESPECIAL TO THE EUREKA DAILY SENTINEL.
CALIFORNIA.
Judge Thorn.on-s Decision.

SAN FRANcIsco, January IS.
The Supreme Court to-day issued a man
damus, commanding Judge Daingerfield,
of the Twelfth District Court, to compel j.
C. Flood to testify before u Notary in the
case of Burke VS.. Flood ct al, or to show
cause, within 20 days, why he should not
be made to do so. This is in the suit to
which the Pacific Wood, Lumber d Flume
Company is a party, for the recovery OF
S4, 900. 600.
AT the annual election of the San Fran
cisco Stock and Exchange Board, to-day,
the following officers were elected Presi-
dent, e. p. Peckham; Vice President. A.
II. Lissak; Chairman, b. II. Colt; Treasu-
rer, J. NJ. Shotwell; Secretary, Charles S.
Neal.
Bodie has declared a dividend Of one
| dollar per share, payable OF. the Goth.
Judge Wheeler this noon, in the Nine
tenth District Court, gave judgment for
So 500 in favor of the city and county of
San Francisco, and against the San Fran
cisco Gaslight Company. This was an
action to recover Judgment for taxes on
personal property.
In the case Of Mahoney VS.. the Board of
Supervisors of San Francisco, an action to
compel the Supervisors to take action with
reference to the condemDing of the La
guna de Ia Merced property. The Su-
preme Court, to-day, dismissed the petition
and Intervention, and denied the writ.
The decision rendered by Judge Thorn
ton, Oh Friday, in the case Of the People,
ETC., VS.. McCrellish, is a very important
one to the ax-payers of the city. 1t is one
of several hundred suits brought in the
Twenty-third District Court by Fisher
Ames, as special counsel for the city, to re-
cover delinquent taxes for the years 1872
and rs, and 1878 and III, aggregating fully
$4,000. The actions were commenced
some three years ago, under a special
statute of 1875 and '76. authorizing the
city to commence such suits, and prescrib-
ing the form of complaint. The main
point of defense was that the tax was ille-
gal, for the reason that tho Board Of SUI
pervisors hadIevied from several funds not
authorized by law, and therefore the whole
levy was vitiated. judgment was rem
dered in favor of the city for the amount
of tax, together with 100 per cent. interest
thereon, and 5 per cent. penalty and cost
of suit. The decision by Judge Thornton
is the first desision by a District Court,
direct to the point touching the question
of the legality of these taxes, and it is the
first time this question has been before the
Court in an action brought by the city
against delinquent taxpayers. IhiS Is re-
sarded as a test case, and it will probably
go to the Supreme Court. But all the
questions involved in tax matters have
been brought mp, so that it can be made a
test case. Mr.. Ames is preparing to ON
nence a large number Of actions against
other parties to collect similar taxes. The
right Of the city to recover having been
aifirmatively passed upon by the District
Court, and many similar cases now at issue
will be tried as fast as reached.