Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-04-14
THE BANK CASE.

The Odd Fellows Bank cases were up
again yesterday in the Superior Court before
Judge Williams, and were argued again at
length on the points already presented IN the
RECORD UNIONS report. At the conclusion
Judge Williams reviewed the case orally,
holding that unseryed defendants were nee
essary parties to be served with summons IN
the case. and that as they might have rights
to be affected by any judgment IN the case,
they must be brought in. Until that Is done
the case is not in a proper condition for trial.
He spoke sharply of the peculiar condition
of the case and the necessity for its being
speedily tried. As managed in the past.
however, he said, it was probable, if such
course was continued, that the next genera
ton would not live long enough to witness
the end of the proceedings. The cause should
be tried on its merits and not go off or be
delayed by any mere technical forms. or or
ders. That the final determination may be on
the merits, and a final adjudication OF the
issues, it was essential that all parties IL
interest be brought within the jurisdiction of
the Court, and until that is done the case
must 90 over. Service should be had at
one and diligence shown in the matter. Mr..
Raymond said he would Immediately have
summons issued and sent to every county
where service can be had, and on the return
he would make the necessary affidavit tor
publication of summons. He pledged him
self to the Court to have every step taken at
once to bring all parties into Court. That
they had not been brought in already was
not his fault. The Court then made some
suggestions to counsel some orders as to the
demurrers and the case came to temporary
Supplemental to the matter,
4 r II i ! 81. ! If
counting by assignee Smith, if it could be
agreed upon by counsel, might be referred, to
be taken. Mr. Smith had large sum in his
hands and was anxious to be relieved of it.
The matter was passed for advisement, Mr.. |
Freeman saving he wished to be heard on any |
motion to dispose ct the money. Mr.. |
Hart, on behalf of J. J. Keegan, objected |
to the entry of the order dissolving the in
junction heretofore issued against the judg |
ment creditors. He said Mr.. Raymond had |
no right to consent to the dissolution as he |
had Mr. Raymond said he consented only |
as to Mr. Smith. Mr.. Catlin said his side |
had made no motion for the dissolution on
Tuesday it came as voluntary offer from |
the assignee's attorney. He had year ago |
moved to dissolve the restraining order, and |
the assignee's counsel resisted it, and success
fully. Tuesday the order OF dissolution was
made and Mr.. Freeman made no objection. |
Mr.. Freeman said he was not aware the order |
had been made, and got his first knowledge |
Of it from the RECORD UNION report. The |
Court revoked its order of dissolution and |
the injunction was restored. The Court said |
it would hear counsel at P. NJ. as to tempo
rary disposition of the money in the hands of |
The assignee. Mr.. Hart objected, and said |
they should not appear at such hearing, as
The money was attached. Mr.. Freeman said |
he would only appear on notice. Mr. Catlin |
5hereupon gave him verbal notice, and the |
ceased. The 2 P. NJ. hearing re-
suited in nothing material.