Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-08-21
AGAINST THE COUNTY
The Ooler Bond Case Results in q
Zig Judgment for the
Bondholders,
will 1t be Enforced or Go up on Appeal?
-K1otty Questions Some
Local History,

Local History.
In the case OF W. n. Coler vs.. the
board Of county commissioners OF Santa
Fe county, which has been pending IN
the district court for the past five days,
the jury Yesterday evening returned, I'M
der instructions of the court, a verdict in
favor OF the plaintiff, CoIer.
The plaintiff sets forth in his dcclara-
ton on which this suit is based that on
March !, 1850, Santa Fe county made and
issued a certain lot OF coupons or contracts
in writing, and promised to pay to the
bearer at the First National bank in the
city OF New York on July l, 1881, certain
sums OF money purporting to be for inter
eel on bonds issued TO the New Mexico
, 4 Southern Pacific Railroad company. 1t
vas r simple suit for moneys owed, the
county having failed to pay interest cou-
pons attached TO these bonds rs they be-
came due.
THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT
Of bonds issued was $4,000 and the in
terest was to have been paid every six
months
In 1851 the county board made levy
OF $4,000 10 meet his interest, but it
seemed to be uncertain as to the validity
Of the bonds, and III Il very shiitless way
( the sheriff and collector was notified that
the people need not pay the tax called for
in this specific levy unless they feel so
! inclined. As result only twenty three
people in the county paid the tax, and
this amounted to little over $4,000
! whereas, according to the estimates by
the county board, the sum OF $4,000 was
! necessary to Keep the county square with
] this railroad interest account.
: IN 1882 the levy for this fund was 49,
! 600, but
! LITTLE or NONE OF II WAS
collected. In 1888 the district court
ordered that the taxes for this fund he
more scrupulously looked after, and for
three years thereafter matters ran along
fairly smooth, till Mr.. B. Seligman, as
chairman OF the county board undertook
to employ legal counsel TO contest the
legality OF these bonds in the courts
In the meantime the county had run
behind with its interest payments, and
to prevent the debt from being outlawed
the bondholders, after agreement with
the county board, they claim, had filed
the above suii-a friendly suit simply TO
prevent the statute OF limitations from
annulling the debt
1t was this suit that Mr.. Seligman,
year later, employed counsel to contest
on the ground that the issue OF $4,000
III bonds was nearly ii not quite
oNE-uAIF ILLEGAL
because it was that amount over and
above per cent of the taxable values OF
the county at the time it was voted, and
congress had declared that no county
should vote bonds in aid OF any one rail-
road for more than per cent OF its as
sessed valuation.
The bondholders claimed to have
bought the bonds upon the strength OF
the recitals made upon their face; that
they were innocent purchasers and sup
posed. and had no reason to doubt, that
the county had issued the paper in good
faith, and this spring an earnest endeayor
was made to have the county board
REFUND THE CLAIM,
bonds and past due interest, amount
ing to about $4,000, and instead reduce
the rate of interest to per cent. issuing a
new set OF bonds to run thirty years. As the
public too well knows, this move brought
on a WrangIe in county affairs with
which We are still Inundated, and the
county refused to refund. The next move
WAS to press the above test suit to issue.
both sides feeling confident, and the issue
came last evening in the shape of first |
blood for the bondholders
At the trial the county undertook to |
prove an over and illegal issue Of bonds, |
a violation OF the per cent limit of as
sessed valuation, by introducing in evil |
dence the original list of property as made |
by the county assessor in 1881. 1t would |
be an easy matter to figure how much 5 |
per cent of the total assessment of Santa
Fe county in 1881 would amount to ii |
tIlaI aSsesSlleul ll5t COulu nave been !
taken as guide, but, most unfortunately,
the assessor had failed to conform to the |
Law. He
FAILED TO MAKE OATH
to the correctness of his list, and in con-
sequence OF this fact the court declined to
permit this list to be offered in evidence.
1t was an incorrect return in the eyes Of
the law and could not therefore be taken
as basis for figuring out what 5 per cent
OF the county's property was at that time
The v hole case hinged OH the question
as to What the taxable property of the
county was assessed at in 1881, and how
this could be legally established. The
county's attorneys then undertook to
offer l.. evidence the property lists for
1881 as certified to by the board of county
The assessor had failed |
to make oath to his return, but neverthe-
less the commissioners compiled with |