The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-09-05
FHE BOND QUESTION.
kyial of Injunction Case Re-
yeals a Strange Story.
.ow ALLEGED MISTAKES AROSE.
.t.ss Proof-readfng and an Attor-
,ey's Confused Memory Explain
rhem-superior Court Notes.

Xeeas< passed Aprl 70, 1883, as puDiished
! ~ Tines. began as follows: THAT il
4 srt.6fths of the voters of the said city of
.s:tIe shall at said election. y etc. Tie
s-esrondine sentence of the ordinance
3 fle in the city clerks Office reads:
. sfkst If three-ffths of the qualified voters
tbe said city of Seattle voting at said
aection, etc
Il civ Clerk Ferris testified that he took
{ L. ordinance as passed to the printing
.aee for publication and 1t was there lost.
S IA ssnt personally TO the Office after it,
II, vas unable to get it.
u Excity Attorney Piles was called to the
tspd and testified positively that the copy
z tie ordinance flied in the clerks Office,
raith he held in his hand, was not the
,us passed BY the city council. He stated
IL month or more after the original
rs lost lie had a copy of the ordinance
rsse BY q typewriter in his Office to re-
tsce the original draft Before it
rs made. however, the ordinance
sn engrossed III the record book of
udinances as published, and signed by the
rsyof and clerk. The clerk afterward
fei the restored copy as the original, and
~
+ impaired with it, and the verbal changes
/ Inserted in it over the signatures of the
uaror and clerk.
The ordinance. as changed from the
Il praication, is literally in accordance with
! ~ act OF March n. fact which the
fziLiiffs' attorneys sought to make APP
1er very significant upon cross-examina-
30 Of the city clerk and ex-city attorney.
bis ordinance as corrected in the second
box was incorporated in the plead
hu OF the late suit brought by
M B. Metcalfe VS.. the City, The clerk and
/ H. Piles were asked il they had their at
snsion called to the changes at that time.
/ they replied that they had net.
/ Mrs. Whicher. who was proof reader of
1 tie Times last April. testified as to the in
bisllibiliiy of the proof-reading in the ordi-
tsnces and legal notices in the Times Office.
She was positive that the published copy was
: literal reproduction of the copy fur
nished by the clerk for publication. She
remembered reading this ordinance by
copy. Isaac Sheets. the copyholder. was
also examined as to his ability as q copy
holder. Foreman Prosch, of the Times.
and l. F. Neatly, the acting fore
pan when the ordinance was
printed, were examined as to the
usual method of dividing ordinances.
The plaintiffs sought to have it appear that
iie copy produced from the files of the
clerks office bad been through the printing
chce, G. S. McNeally and T. H. Pidduck,
the bookkeeper, were asked ii it did not
bear marks OF having been handled by
compositors. Neither would say positively
but thought that it did.
M. Piles desired to be recalled after al
other evidence was in. He said that his
memory had been refreshed as to the cir
cunsiances surrounding the occasion of
correcting the copy. A copy of the ordi-
nance WAS printed on the back of the
bonds, which were printed by the Au-
gust Cast Company, of st. Louis.
4 proof was sent to him for
correction and he found several mis-
hken in it. He had Just drawn up three
oordance with the act of February g. 1880,
nd two in accordance with the act of
March %, 1880. He had them mixed in
bis mind. and corrected the proof of the
tond and of the restored copy
ii the ordinance. which was
hen being made in his Office,
ia accordance with the act of March 26.
~. c. F. Fishback afterward discovered
he discrepancy between the engrossed and
|sed copies of the ordinance and called his
|fentlon to the difference. He then tele-
|koned to Tyler, deputy clerk, to correct
be enrossed copy according to the filed
|npy.
The hearing of the application of Henry
L Yesler ct al. for a temporary injunction
|Eloining the mayor and city cornell from
|saing the water and sewer bonds, fled in
De superior court last Sat urday. was be-
gun before Judge Lichtenberg yesterday
|ulernoon.
The testimony was all taken during the
rlernoon. An evening session was held
nth the intention of completing the hear
hg and reaching decision before its close,
Mt by the time the opening arguments
sere concluded. the hour was SO far
sayanced that the court decided to take a
Hcess until this morning. when the argu-
aent will be concluded.
The city attorney was DESTROYS of max
lag this the final hearing of the cause, as
be knew OF no new issues that could be
ssed on the hearing for a perpetual in
Nnction. The opposing counsel would
fot agree to this, and the court proceeded
non. There is no doubt, however, but that
IN appeal will be taken from the decision
q this case. and the case be decided by the
supreme court without another trial in the
saperior court
The city was represented by City At
Afney Shepard and s. III. Piles. r. B.
Aioertson and George Donworth appeared
bf the plaintiffs.
The court granted two continuances of
PIE hearing,
The case was set for 10 o'clock a. m. At
mai hour the city attorney was granted
Nnunuance until 80 O'Clock p. M, as he
ssa rot had sufficient time 10 prepare his
answer. At o'clock the attorneys of both
1Afhes again appeared, and the plaintiffs
"'ofneys asked for another continuance
ANU $50, for the purpose of gaining time
reply TO the city's answer, which had
Aeh been filed. At $50 the courtroom
.S hlsed with the witnesses, members of
1ee ely council and interested spectators.
aae complaint filed in the case alleges
a.. e eaie OA tue oohus - AeeBal Oh TIC
~owihg grounds: First, the city ordi-
.'aee submitting the proposition TO bond
~ city provided for more than one object,
~, waier-works and sewers-a violation
{ Tue provisions OF the existing charter;
sVohd, the ordinance was never published;
-''u, 1t is proposed TO sell the bonds for
Than par. in violation of the
DIVISIONS OF the ordinance authoriz-
the issue of the bonds; fourth,
y NC Ordinance as passed required the votes
Aree-iifths of all voters of the city TO
'..oefize the issue of the bonds.
1ae deiendant's answer was a &c neral
la OF these allegations. and in reference
'ae second, that the ordinance had
"a G been published. there was an
safmaliye allegation that the ordinance