The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1889-01-31
THE TOWNSHIP EoSDs.
Further Time Granted Tor The bea'ib@
of these Impo tant Cases-5he supreme
Court AdjouIns 10 Ap - 10.
1Snecial 10 News and Courier.

Especial 10 News and Courier.
CoLuMBIA, January Pin the
Supreme Court to-day, in tic case OF
the State eX rel the Charleston, Cincin-
mati and Chicago Railroad Company
Ct al VS. the County Commissioners Of
I.a.:raster County, 4 motion was made
BY Mr. Ira 3. Jones, representing the
respondents, the county ,,c"mmission-
crs, for further time in Wilic! to Tile a
return. After argument by McsSrs
Shand. Sheppard Allison and Hart for
the REALTORS and Ira B. Jones for the
respondents, further time was granted.
The order allows the respondents
until February to file their return,
the REALTORS until February 10 to file
arguments, the respondents until Feb
ruary 33 to file arguments and the re-
lators until March to file argument IN
reply. The arguments will all be
printed and the members Of the Su
Dre.ne Court-then in rccesswill read
them, and by correspondence come to
Il decision in regard to the matter. The
determination Of the Court may, there
fore. ne expected at any time after
March l.
twas further ordered that the re-
spondcnts in the two York county
cases. already mentioned in The News
and Courier, be granted leave to sub
NIT their cases under the terms pre-
scribel as to the Lancaster case just
noted. This, of course, does not
abridge the right of the respondents to
wait until April Is to submit their
cases, in accordance with previous per-
mission granted by the Court. They
can wait until the date last named if
they choose. The report Of fact eXclu-
sively made in The News and Courier
is accordingly sustained, and the pa
pers which foreshadowed a probable
! hearing to-day are proved to have been
wrong.
Although the York cases may not
cone to hearing for nearly three
months. the decision in the Lancaster
case, it is expected, will settle the ques-
ton at issue, and anticipate the result
in the other eases. The facts as to
Lancaster appear to be as follows:
"The county commissioners Of that
county, acting as the financial agents Of
the township, through which the Three
| C's' road runs, executed bonds in aid
of the road which were deposited with
the Boston Safe Deposit and Trust
Company, under trust indenture that
| the trust company should deliver the
bon,ls to the railroad company when
ever the certificates signed by The chief
engineer Of the road were presented to
tie trust company, stating that the
road was completed through! such town
ships: but these certificates were to be
countersigned By majority Of the
board Of county commissioners. The
road having been completed through
the townships the certificates have
been signed by the chief engineer and
presented, but the commissioners have
refused to countersign them. The ac-
ton before the Supreme Court is to re-
quire them to countersign these certiti-
Gates in accordance with their own i'll
denture entered into between them
selves and the trust company. The
refusal of the county commissioners to
act can only be based upon the allega-
ton that the bonds are invalid. Thus
the invalidity of the bonds will be the
real question, rs in the York cases. The
probability is that the attorneys for
| the York and Lancaster officials will
unite forces aud make the fight of the
Lancaster case, which will come up
! first.
The Supreme Court, at the conclusion
OF the days Business, adjourned 10 meet
again on the 18th Of April.
|