Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-04-03

to pass the title to the purchaser. This de-
cision went upon the grounds that although
the sale would be Intellectual to pass the title,
yet it would be sufficient to cast doubt upon
the validity of the title, and that the owner
was entitled TO an injunction to prevent the
injury caused by such doubt. This seems to
be common. sense view of the matter, and
it is the view taken by cur Supreme Court.
But the very moment Judge Waymire made
this decision, the remedy, if his decision was
correct. was clear. Under law passed last
winter, the writ of prohibition as to Superior
Courts was enlarged 80 as to run against ex-
ecutive and ministerial officers excseding their
jurisdiction. The revenue laws provide that
If there is any illegality in tax. the Tax
Collector shall not sell; therefore, if we as
sumo that Judge Waymire was correct, and
that the tax was illegal and void, cur remedy
was not by injunction, but was by prehibi-
tion.
FURTHER EXPLANATION.
Now, coming to the matter of which you
speak under the head of "Snap Judgment"
I permitted, without question, the case
against Colusa county to be transferred to
that county. supposing that no motion would
be made or heard to dissolve the injunction
without notice, in the full belief that if I
could present the matter fairly to Judge
DlAUCil<ths Uc Woutu su5baiU INb III
junction. or il he arrived at the conclusion
that Judge Waymire did. he would neces-
sarily issue the writ of prohibition. The mo-
tion was made, as l have the advice, on Mon.
day, to dissolve that Injunction at $50
o'clock on Wednesday l first heard by letter
then received from Coluss, that a motion had
been made to dissolve the injunction that
it would probably be granted on Wednesday
morning. l immediately proceeded to obtain
writ of prohibition and to have it tele-
grephed to Colusa for service. Under Judge
Waymire's decision no Judge who accepted it
could refuse to grant writ of prohibition.
That writ was telegraphed to Uolusa. and
served some time in the afternoon of We'd
nesday-just as soon as it could be done. At
the same time te,egraphed Judge Blanchard,
hoping that the telegram would reach him
before he had made the decision, that we
should like TO be heard upon that motion.
The next telegram I received from Colusa was
that the injunction was dissolved. Shortly
after this | received another dispatch saying
that the Judge had set aside the order, and
had set the case for hearing for the next
evening. Soon after this l received dis
patch from the Judge himself, saving that It
would be of no use for me to come, l1less [
wanted to move for another il junction l
took this as al intimstion that the Judges
mind was
FIXED AGAINST US.
But l nevertheless endeavored To get to
Colusa. That being impossible, by telegraph,
l notified Mr.. Goad the regular attorney for
the railroad company, aud also retained Mr..
Matt. +, johnson, one of the abIest lawyers
OF his age in Northern California, tosargue
the case before Judge Blanchford. and sent
written argument to be presented 10 the
Judge. There was 20 necessity for any snap
judgment. The writ of prohibition had been
sent and served long before the special meg
senger went &c Colusa. That special niessen-
ger was sent to consult with the lswyers upon
the other side, and to say to them that we
would accede to any steps which they deemed
necessary to be taken to present the question
to the Courts upon its merits.
l regret exceedingly the publication Of the
article in question. and 1 now give you per,
mission to call at the telegraph office and to
read every dispatch sent from Colusa to me,
.or by me from this place, relative to the sub
ject Respectfully yours, b.
CREED RAYMOND.