Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1891-12-22
A MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS.
THAT IS WHAT THE DEFENSE cox.
TENDS FOR.

The Case Of the Taxpayers Against th,
County Commissioners Before tn,
Court on Demurrer StubbOrn Resist.
ance to the Hearing on Merit.
The defense in the case instituted
to prohibit the payment of several
thousand dollars worth of warrant.
, issued by order of the Board Of
County Commissioners for lobbying
purposes at Boise, and for other
alleged illegal claims, is keeping up
its tactics. It seeks to delay the final
hearing of the case on its merits by
resorting to every legal subterfuge,
thus demonstrating its lack of con.
fidence in the justice of its cause,
as the plaintiffs have been ready to
try the case from the institution OF
the suit, last summer.
The case was up before the Court
this morning, on the demurrer inter.
posed by the defense. Counsel for
the defendants argued the demurrer
and sought to have it sustained on
the grounds usually advanced to CON-
bat the issuance of an injunction.
The argument Of counsel was merely
a repetition of the allegations made
by them when the Court was first
seized with the case, last summer, and
they. of course, sought to reinforce
their argument by numerous refer.
ences to authorities.
Mr.. Montandon replied for the
plaintiff. He did not take issue with
the authorities cited. They are good
law. But the questions raised in the
complaint are such that the chan
cellor presiding over this court of
equity must feel compelled to con.
slider them.
The first objection in the demurrer,
to-wit: that the complaint does not
show sufficient cause for action, was
considered. This Mr.. Montandon
felt he could trust the Court TO decide
upon without lengthy argument from
him.
The plaintiff, taxpayer CONES into
court to endeavor to restrain the pay
ment of warrants. Unless this is done
taxes will be levied; if he refuses to
pay his property will be sold, and he
will be damaged beyond redress,
except at great loss OF time, much
and expense.
The complaint shows several facts
which constitute a cause of action.
Although i. does not allege fraud, it
shows a state of facts which constitute
fraud; although no conspiracy is
alleged it shows state Of facts which
a conspiracy; although it
did not aAege breach of trust, the
officials are complained of as having
the trust reposed in them.
The complaint shows that the plain
tiff has not only one, but several
causes OF action.
Mr. Montandon referred to a number
IF authorities, retaining, to save time
and out of regard for the court, from
discussing them at length.
He quoted many authorities covers
ng every allegation of the complaint
hat is not otherwise substan,iated by
'ecord evidence, and dwelt at some
ength on the limitation placed by
statute upon the powers of County
Commissioners.
Learned counsel on the other side
1as cited many authorities. Mr..
is not afraid Of any of
hose authorities, he is willing that
hey should be considered as his own;
t they are properly applied every one
II them will sustain the complaint.
Counsel for defense had alleu ed
hat the proper manner Of proceeding
vas by appeal from each order of
allowance disputed. This would
'eccessita,e the bringing of large
lumber Of suits, put the plaintiffs and
very defendant to enormous expense,
nd clog the calender OF this court
With many cases that might not be
disposed Of for years.
The court stating that the only
Iue st!on in his mind was as to whether