Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-12-02
PITTsBURG, TUESDAY,
ALL OF THEM DEMUR.
A Quadruple Reply 10 the Bill in
Equity Filed by W. ]. Howard
AGAINST THE CITY AND OFFICIALS.
Judge Stowe Instructs Grand Jurors in No
Undecided Manner.
NEWS OF ADAY IN THE COUNTY COURTS

Dy City Attorney Cleveland and Council-
man W. A. Magee, to the bill in equity by
w. j. Howard against the city OF Pitts
burg, Mayor, Controller, Treasurer, Finance
Committeemep, present and ex., and the
city depositaries. The defendants ranged
themselves into four classes, and each speaks
its own piece, filing separate demurrer.
The first is by the city, Mayor Gourley,
Controller Morrow, and Treasurer Dennis
ton. who say:
''These defendants demur to 80 much of
the bill as seeks relief against them, and for
cause show:
"First-The plaintiff has not. by his bill,
made such case as entities him in a court
of equity to any relief from or against de-
fendants.
''Second-Plaintif in the first prayer of
mis- bill asks the Court to decree that the
moneys collected and to be collected by the
city and the investment made thereof for
the sinking funds, are trust fund, to be
held in trust inviolably pledged for the ben
eft of the bondholders of the city and the
payment of its funded debt, without in any
manner showing that said moneys are not
now held as trust fund and so inviolably
pledged as fully as though decree of court
were made for the purpose.
SEEKING FOR A SUBSTITUTE.
''Third-Plaintiff in his prayer seeks to
strike down the repositories of the city
which were regularly chosen by Councils
and to substitute others in their stead, and
this without the consent of Councils, with
out even making them parties to the bill
aud without authority of law.
'Fourth-Plaintiff in his second prayer
seeks to withdraw the sinking fund of the
city from its regularly chosen depositaries,
to deprive it, through its Councils, of the
care, management and control of funds
which power is vested in them by law, and
to place said care, management and control
in the hands not so vested and without Civ
ing Councils a hearing or making them
parties to the bill.
"Fiith-The control of the sinking fund is
vested BY law in Councils, and, as shown by
the bill, Councils have heretofore exercised,
and are now exercising this power.
1.-THE plaintiff in his third prayer seeks to
wrest this power from Councils and place it
in the hands of the City Controller, thereby
striking down a discretionary power vested
by law in legislative body and substituting
the discretionary power of an individual,
and this without any authority of the law.
'Sixth-Plaintiff, in the fourth place, seeks
to add to the terms of contract duly made
between the city and the Allegheny Ma
tional, Farmers Deposit National, First
National and Freehold Banks, and this
without making Councils party to the bill
and without authority of law.
"Seventh-Councils,a as is shown by the
bill itself, are an indispensable party de-
endant
"Eighth-The bill does not charge any
combination, conspiracy or fraud by which
the plaintiff has suffered, or is likely to su :
fer, any loss OF property.
'The averments in the 9th, 18th, 18th and
14th paragraphs of the bill are scandalous,
scurrilous and impertinent, and the bill as
whole shows that the plaintiff is not fling
it in good faith as taxpayer to protect
him from any possible loss in the handling
of the sinking fund, but merely for some
ulterior purpose of his own in connection
with other corporations and individuals.
"Wherefore, defendants ask whether they
shall be compelled to make any further or
other answer and pray to be dismissed, I"
etc.
DEMURRER OF DEPoSITARIES.
The second demurrer was filed by the city
depositaries above named. They add that
they object to The conglomeration which
mixes them up with the other defendants in
matters in which they, the aforementioned
banks are not interested and that the bill is
multifarious in the following among other
respects:
A.-That the bill joins as defendants four
classes: First, the city. Mayor, Controller
and Treasurer; second. present members of
the Finance Committee; third, the former
members of the Finance Committee whose
terms of Office expired long before the filing
OF the bill, and fourth, the banks compris-
ing the city depositaries.
Respondents, being merely the depos-
itaries or debtors of the city, should not be
involved in a controversy between a tax
payer and the city whereby he seeks to
personally charge the second and third
classes in the bill with a per-
sonal liability for some alleged dereliction
of duty, there being no averment to show
that in any way these respondents were con-
nected with the dereliction. The bill itself
shows on its face that the money on deposit
is subject at all times to the check of the
City Treasurer. Also, it is stated, taking
all to be in good faith, the case disclosed is
one where Councils, having the power to do
so, regulated the investment of the sinking
funds in the purchase of bonds in manner,
one taxpayer in the city; the plaintiff, thinks
unwise, and this taxpayer seeks through a
Court of Chancery to control the manage
ment and investment of the funds without
any application to Councils and notwith.
standing Councils, in whom the State
lodged the power to manage and control the
sinking funds. represents every taxpayer in
the city. This, it is evident, one taxpayer
cannot do.
Separate demurrers were filed BY the
present members of the Finance Committee
and by the former members. In them the
other demuyT