Evening journal., 1890-01-15
4 MANDAMUS is REFUSED.
NO RECEIPTS TO BE ISSUED ON
POWERS OF ATTORNEY.

ceipts Except to the Taxable Himself.
Chief Justice Comegys read the opinion
of the Superior Court bench on the appli-
cation for mandamus against Tax Col
lector John ]. Dougherty, this morning
1t was concurred In by the other judges
and by 1t the application for mandamus
is refused There was a small, but ex-
tectant crowd in the court room when
the chief Justice and his associates went |
on the bench at 9. as o'clock There were
less than fifty spectators outside of law
vers. Nearly every member of the New
Castle county bar sat within the rail.
The gas jets of the large chandelier
over the clerks desk were burning for |
the room was dark. Neither Senator Gray |
nor Senator Higgins the opposing coun- |
sci and party leaders in the case was |
present, each being In Washington. w. |
c. Spruance, Esq, and p Q Churchman, |
Esq, counsel for John w. Hawkins, the
relator, and George Il. Bates, Esq, and
John H. Rodney, ESQ. counsel for the
defendant, were in attendance.
Chief Justice ComegYs stated that the
opinion OF the court on the application
for new trial in the case of George Fl.
Williams would be read Associate
Judge Paynter read the opinion. Chief
Justice Comegys then read the opinion
in the mandamus case
The causes which led to the application
for mandamus are as follows; On Nov
ember 30, 1890, prominent Republicans
from each ward of the city appeared be-
fore Tax Collector Dougherty with pow
ers of attorney from sixty-fve voters and
offering the amount due in payment, de-
manded their tax receipts. The demand
was refused. On Dec 9, the application
for a mandamus was filed and on Decem-
Der j the answer was fled Argument
was made on December 20 and 21, and
the court reserved it's decision. The
| substance of the application and answer
and of the arguments were published at
| the time they were made. The opinion
of the court follows In full
New Castle County, Nov. Term, 1889
The State on the Mandamus
relation of Rule to show
John w. Hawkins cause why
VS.. peremptOry
John J. Dougherty, writ should not
Collector of Taxes. be issued.
"This case was well presented to the
court by the counsel on both sides; and
we suppose all that could be urged, pro
and con, in the controversy before us, has
been brought forward in the argument,
for our consideration. 1t is, on come
accounts, unfortunate that it became
necessary, as was supposed, to INTRODUCED
it into the business TO be transacted BY
the court; for, ia all such disputes No
decision can be rendered that will be sat
isfactory to more than one class OF the
people.
1T Is not improper, we think, to say
that this seems to be 9 vital controversy
to both the political parties in this state
the unwonted zeal which characterized
the discussion on both sides, indicating
such Importance very plainly. 1t would
have been very agreeable to the court 10
be spared the necessity of giving jndg
ment which, In any event. such is the
temper Of political parties, cannot satisfy
the public generally, but only part Of
1t. However that may be, it is our duty
as the case is before us. to decide 1t as We
best may according to our ability anl
we trust that the better portion of thos
discontinued with tn decision will
ultimately believe the view we take Of |
the correct one
Before entering upon consideration o
! the principal question in the case befor
us, it is proper that we should determin
whether the petition filed by the relate
should be entertained by the court, il
view Of the objections set forth in tn
, arguments Of the counsel for the defend
ant.
First, that the relator has no practices
. interesting the subject matter of his CON
4 plant, except in such minute degree a
! will not justify the court in setting i
motion its extraordinary remedy for a.
, legged breach Of public duty by an officer
: and
: Second, that the application is mad
prematurely. With respect to the first G
these objections, it appears to be the Law
as shown by the authorities on this
g point cited by the REALTORS counsel. tina
!. any interest of legal and direct chara'
J. ter, will warrant the issuance of an a
) tentative mandamus, and ultimately th
!. peremptory writ, unless sufficient caus
n upon the hearing of the rule he show
e against it. The relator, John w. Hav
kins, has an interest in the performanc
of his public duty by the respondent
to wit, the collection of all the take
# committed to him to be collected,
s being taxable of the county, ownin
n property within it. and which duty b
" claims the respondent has not per
d formed, but refuses to perform, IL bein
alleged to be the receipt of all none
offered to him for the payment Of take
and delivery of receipt therefor I'll
facts set forth In his application bein
70 that the respondent has refused, and al
n nounced his purpose to refuse poll take
g, and to deliver to attorneys Ia fact
IL taxables assessed for them, by who's
Il. hands the money was rendered receip
N for the money paid. in the form pr'
scribed by the act of April 10, 1873.
The respondent in his return to tn
writ, alleges that he has not refused
- receive any poll taxes committed to hi
~ for collection, but only has declined
receive such taxes from others than Il
lg taxables themselves, and deliver to SUE
others the receipt aforesaid: that is,
n. refuses TO give the tax receipts to Il
a. attorneys in fact Of the taxables-sI
this under advice of counsel. He also sa
that he has always been ready when II
o. engaged otherwise officially. to recei
De taxes from all taxables applying to p'
them. and give them the receipts pr
tn vided for by law and that he shall be
i'd ready thereafter 1.-THE time Of the retur
until the March session of the Lee
an Court, then nearly three months off: th
-. is the substance of his answer to {
REALTORS charge.
"But for the fact charged and not
" MED, and therefore to be taken as tru
" that the collector had refused to deliy
to his attorneys in fact of taxables {
he receipts for taxes provided for by I