Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-17

the people established and located Al
Maria Ia the said county OF PresidIo. y
All the county officers save appellant M.
moved TO Maria. The courts were
held and the business OF the coun-
ty In general was transacted there
Appellant tailed and refused to remove
his office TO Maria, and three of the
county commissioners sustained him in
his refusal. Two Of said commissioners
were, upon application aud citation, sum.
m ned before the district Judge and sus-
pended, and other persons appointed to
act as commissioners during the suspen-
sion Of the protesting commissioners 1t
does not appear, however, that they were
removed. Upon application Of the dis
trict Judge Tor the removal of the county
Judge. his functions were suspended and
one Harnett appointed to act during
the Suspension OF the county iudge
elect. The commissioners court consisted
Of himself two commissioners elected
and one appointed. The commissioners
advertised for bids and plans for court
house and jail to be erected at Maria.
Contracts were made by the commission
ers' court, consisting of the aoove named
persons for the erection of buildings to
cost $4,000, and to Be paid in bonds Of
the county. Some OF the bonds were
properly made ont and presented to the
appellant for registration. he refused to
register them for several reaso; S; among
them wss that the bonds were not issued
by competent authority, also because
Maria was not the county seat, and that
Maria not being within five miles of the
geographical center the county seat had
never been removed, lacking
the requisite two-third vote
The ground of the action against appel
liant Is Official misconduct in failing to re-
move and keep his Office in the town of
Maria, and his refusal to register the
bonds. In court below verdict and judg-
ment were against Carothers. Held, that
this court has jurisdiction of the cause to
revise the proceedings of the district
court; the suit being one to remove APP
pellant from an Office to which he had
been elected by the people, and to per-
form the duties of which he had qualified.
Quoting Art. 0, Sec. 2 of the Act of Apr
10, 1879, General Laws 1879, p. 81; the
Act amendatory thereof was passed
Apr. II, 1888, General Laws 1883, 80;
the Act Mares 2S, 1881, the court holds
that the two acts may stand and both
have application but to different states of
fact The votes cast were not sufficient
not beng within five miles of the geo
graphical center of the county. When a
county seat is to be removed from place
not within five miles of the center to
place within five miles of said center
then, and then only, will majority vote
be sufficient to remove said county seat.
And held further that appellant was not
guilty Of official misconduct in refusing to
remove his Office to Maria, nor in refus-
ing to register the bonds. Reversed and
remanded. Stayton, j.
l. B. Carothers VS. 7. T. Hornett. Ap.
peal from Presidio county. This action
was brought b. appellant against the
acting county judge of Preside county,
and the county commissioner of said |
county, to restrain the defendants from
against HIM, under their order |
requiring him to register the bonds, and |
to restrain them from proceeding against |
him for the purpose of removing him |
from office, and also to RESTRAIN them |
from interfering with or removing the |
records of his Office to Maria. He also |
asked on the trial of the cause that |
writ issue restraining the |
defendants no longer to retain the county |
records at Maria. In the court be- |
low there was verdict and Judgment |
for defendants There is no question
but what the district court had iurisdic-
ton OF this cause; such being the case
this court has jurisdiction. The court (
below overruled demurrers filed by de-
PENDANTS, tried the case on its merits.
and found judgment in their favor. This
Is equivalent to an express finding that
the defendants had no intention to seize
Or carry away any official records, or use
any coercive measures to compel appel
liant to register bonds which he had re-
fused to register" He who seeks to re-
strain Improper or unlawful conduct on
he part OF public officers must allege
sufficient facts to show that he has such
IN interest in the public welfare
rs TO make him q proper party
10 prevent the commission of a
public wrong. 1t will generally suffice
4 tue person seeking the injunction be a
'itlzen and taxpayer. But to warrant the
relief in behalf of citizens and tax. PAYERS
against acts of public officers, 1t should
DC shown that plaintiffs rights will be
greatly injured by the acts which it is
sought to enjoIn, and unless this is shown
'ellef will be denied" (Htgh on Iniunc-
ION, l82l. Bsfores the mandatory writ
,ould issue 1t would be ne c. ssaryto show
hat Maria Is not county seat, and this
IAN not be done at the suit of private ,
'itzen. Affirmed. Stayton, J.
l.. Carothers VS.. w II Slaughter ct
II. Appeal from Preside county. This
uit was brought by appellant against the
county judge and sheriff of Preside I
'ounty TO enloln them from removing or /
lttempting TO remove the records of /
'residio county from the town OF Fort !
Davis to the town of Maria, and to !
'nioin holding county and commissioners ]
'onrt at the latter place. This court has !
Jurisdiction as in case above. When the I
'ase was called for trial, exceptions were /
AIKEN to the petition, aud SUI talned In re.
'ard to enjoining the holding Of the /
oounty and commissioners court at /
ufa; whereupon plaintiff refused to I
mend, or further prosecute his suit
Held, the appellant voluntarily declined /
o prosecute his suit, and it was properly G
Affirmed. Stayton, j. G
The Voltaio Belt Co., Marshall, Mich,
hot, /