Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1882-06-01
THAT RAIEWATfs SUR.
How Esquire BiedsOe, Hon. Casey
Young, Attorney General T1r-
rer and Judge Stanley Mat.
theWs Saved 100000 TO
shelby County.

looked like trees had fallen on them
yesterday soon after Judge Stanley
Matthews began his charge to the
jury.
The learned Judge had not spoken
more than a dozen words Of the Opin-
ion, before one ofthe spectators famil.
lar with the case leaned over and
whispered to an attorney, II wouldn't
give a picayune a thousand for those
eighty-two unredeemed county bonds"
"Wait until you hear the charge
through, said the attorney" I've heard
enough to satisfy me your case is
lost" said the citizen in
return, and as the Judge proceeded,
in his explanation of the case, in clear
tones and compact expressions, it soon
became evident that he had espoused
the cause Of the people and that he
was instructing the jury to render a
verdict against the plaintiffs, which
the jury did without leaving their
seats.
The attorneys caught the drift early,
and interrupted the court by asking
for a written opinion. The Judge
replied, ut is enough that the case is
decided against you. Take your plead
ingS; you know what they are, and
write the opinion yourself; then set
down afterward that they are revers-
ed" Several times later the Judge was
interrupted by the attorneys, asking
permission to refer the court to a point
which had escaped attention, but the
Judge replied the court was thor
oughly satisfied there were no
points to be made which could
possibly affect the decision.
other features Judge
Matthews said the constitution Of
Tennessee was different from that Of
any other State, in that it expressly
stipulates that no Legislature has the
power to pass an act authorizing a
county to make subscriptions unless
it be authorized by a two.thirds vote
of the people, and this had never been
done in the case under review. 1t
was further announced that the Bar
bour Lewis Commissioners, having
been an illegal body, it had no power
to make the original subscription Of
100000 to the Mississippi River
Railway Company, since then merged
into the Chesapeake & Ohio company.
The decision Of the court was re-
garded as a great victory for the peo-
pie, and it created widespread COM
ment in business circles throughout
the city during the afternoon.
AS before remarked, there are
eighty two of these bonds, the remain
ing 2l8 having been taken up by the
county. A year and a half or more
back an effort was made to settle the
pending suit with Norton, and it went
so far that the County Court passed
an act to levy a tax for the redemp-
ton Of the bonds. This action was
threatened with an injunction, and
the matter was delayed until the court
met in January last. Then a citizens
committee Of leading citizens, includ-
ing R. D. Goodwin, S, H. Dunscomb,
John 7. Fargason, J. T. Petit. TAos.
Holman, jr., j. A. Taylor and A. D.
Hunter reported in favor of settling
with Norton by compromise.
The termso Of the proposed settlement
as recommended by the committee
after a thorough consideration in view
of the doubtful nature of the defense
were: "That $40, 900 be deducted from
the bonds and interest; that the cash
then in the hands of the County Court
Clerk, collected on assessments to pay
said bonds, be applied to their further
reduction; and that the remainder be
settled by issuing bonds at 6 per cent
to be redeemed in ten annual install,
ments, the same to be given Exteir
Norton, the holder Of the eighty-twC
bonds sued on, and the latter to b.
oInoelled."
Esquire B. G. Bledsoe disssnteC
from the proposal, on the ground that
a judicial termination Of the county
liability to pay should first be had, anC
he asked hat the proposition be re
jected, and the suit then pending b,
resisted. Afterward Esquire Winter
Joined, and with him signed the pro
test, but the Court accepted the com
promise.
Next day, which was the 18th o
January last, Attorney-G General Tur
ner. as counsel for the county, pro
tested against the Courts action il
accepting the proposed settlemeu
with Norton, and he asked the Cour
to reconsider what they had done. II
contended hat the bonds upon whicl
the county's liability was predicate
had been issued without authority {
law, aud we're null and void. b
further contended that, having bee
conceived and continued 10 fraud, tn
money previously paid on the bonds b