Evening journal., 1889-12-13
LAST EDITION
THE RETURN SHOT.
REASONS FOR DlScHARGlNG The
MANDAMUS APPLICATION.

The Superior Court convened at q
o'clock this afternoon to hear the answer
to the rule to show cause why manda
mus should not be issued in
answer to the petition Of John Wesley
Hawkins, compelling Tax Collector John
j. Dougherty TO issue poll tax receipts on
the powers of attorney presented to him
on Monday November 80
Senator Higgins. William G. Spruance.
Esq, John II. Rodney. q Pickels, f. Z.
Bach, Senator Gray, John w. Hawkins,
and prominent party men on both sides
were present.
As soon as Court convened John H
Rodney, Esq, filed an answer to the petit
tion the gist of which is as follows:
The answer sets forth
l. That John j. Doughertv was ap-
pointed collector and gave proper secur-
ity.
2 That in thirty days after he had
received the duplicate assessment list he
gave public notice and proceeded to
receive and collect taxes
3. That the details Of the Office of col
iector of taxes as to location Of his resi-
dence or place of business or
house in which the same should
be open for the business of said Office
discretion and selection and are not sub
ject TO the control OF the court.
That rs collector Of taxes from the
middle of May to October 1889 he at
tended at his Office according to the no
tice aforesaid which was well known to
the public at large having been for years
the Office Of the collectors, who preceded
Mr.. Dougherty.
Thet during that time his office hours
were from 8 a. m TO - noon and from
p. m to 8 p. M, daily. And that he did
so receive during that time both
property and poll taxes. and that full,
equal, ample and free opportunity was
given to all taxables to pay their respect
i've taxes during that time.
A That during the month of October
it was necessary to raise money for the cur
rent expenses Of the county and defendant
was compelled to make earnest efforts to
collect real estate or property taxes, and
was of necessity more frequently absent.
from his Office for that purpose By
reason OF illness during the month Of
November he was prevented from being
at his Office for period Of about three
weeks
5 1t is true he has refused to leave
receipts for taxes, other than real estate,
at his office in his absence, for the reason
that the same might lead TO confusion
and possibly fraud, believing that course
to De the best exercise of discretion given
him by law.
6 Although his office was open from
May to October, as set forth, and ready
TO receive taxes. the persons named in
the petition negligently or willfully
omitted to pay their taxes, and
that during the months of October
and November said persons with others
in tgmultuous manner under the lead
ership and control Of designing and sci.
fish men, crowding his Office, demanding
that he should at the sacrifice of import.
ant businass of the office attend solely Ia
the receipt Of poll taxes, and the issuance
of q fair proportion Of his business hours
not required by the outside duties of his
office were spent by him in said Office
In answer to the statement that assist.
ance WAS accepted in real estate taxes
and dechued in poll taxes the defendant
AYERS that in assessments of real estate
that there are frequently numerous
entries, and there being but one entry
Of poll tax Of each individual
no assistance could be proitably EN-
ployed In view Of the penalty imposed
by law for Illegally giving receipt and
in returning delinquents, the defendant
considered it right and proper to uss ex
treme care and caution and therefore
gave the matter his personal attention.
z And this defendant denies that he
has ever refused 70 receive the taxes OF
any taxable properly assessed, when the
same has been offered in person and at a
proper and seasnnable time
g. Repeated applications were made K
defendant to Issue large numbers of pol
tax receipts end deliver them into the
hands Of the person who made the appli
cation. He not being a taxable who's
receipt was thus called for the defsndan-
declined TO 90 so He believes that sueL
course is conducive to fraud anC
unwise, uniudicioUs and unlawful
The defendant believes that the placing
of large numbers Of tax receipts Of othel
persons into the hands of any one in
dividual would be productive of results
much to be deplored, and give to The
person so holding the poll tax receipts al
improper and unlawful influence and con
troll contrary to the spirit of our law
and constitution.
8. The defendant further shows tina
subsequently the same application wa
renewed, the parties making the applica
NloH pfouuciuR letters OF attorney pur
porting to authorize their action ant
demand And this defendant admits tha
he refused to accept the powers o
attorney having been advised that b.
was not obliged to do so He also saw
that he is still collector for the North
ern district of Wilmington hundred
and that the taxables who excepted th
powers of attorney will have until mex
March, ample opportunity to pay thei
poll taxes, and that he is willing to re
'ceive the same.
10. In answer to the statements Sc
forth in several Of the affidavits filed
First, he denies positively the allegation
of Samuel w. Wadsworth that the de
fendant on application to him for Ia.
receipt replied: You are not on tn
list, without examining said list as {
that fact. The defendant says posi
lively that he always mad
careful examination and If the sam
name was not Immediately found, exami
nation was again made with increase
care and caution.
Second; The defendant admits that h
did, as II. G. Mahaffy alleges, close hi
Office at noon, and that sucn action wa
necessary because he was compelled t
go out and collect real estate taxes o
persons VINO We're deferred from COMING
to the Office that upon thi
occasion he told AIahsfTy that he coul
not allow Mahaffy to run the Office
Third Ia reply to the affidavit q
Francis :. Bradley, the defendant say