, 1891-06-12
SUPREME COURT MATTERS
Amlcable Suit of Crook County and the
Rollins Investment Co.
II is in Relation to the Issue Of Bonds
Funding the County Debt.
Application for a Writ Of Habeas Corpus
and a City Case.

The state supreme court was in session
yesterday at the capitol aud heard Rrgu-
ment in a number of important matters
and performed a large amount Of routine
work.
The case of Crook county and the Rol-
Inns Investment company OF Denver was
heard, Messrs. Potter q Burke appear
ing for the Investment company and d.
T.. Parks of Denver and NJ. Nichols for
Crook county. The case argued was
upon an agreed statement OF facts be-
tween Crook county and the Rollins In
vestment company and the question in
volved is, upon what general assess
ment for taxation, is the amount which
Crook county can bond its Indebtedness
existing at the time of the adoption Of
the constitution. 1t is to be determined
under section B, article I6 OF the state
constitution, which provides that such
counties may bond such Indebtedness not
exceeding 4 per cent OF the assessed yalu-
alton OF taxable property as shown by the
last general assessment. The facts were
argued in che district court and Judge
Scott reserved the case to the supreme
court for decision, as allowed by the stat
ute when a difficult question is presented.
Crook county voted $500 of bonds
upon the assessment OF 1889 and the
bonds we're offered to the Rollins Invest
ment company OF Denver, who agreed to
purchase them provided their legality
was assured. Mr.. Parks their attorney,
thought they were legal but as there was
a differences in opinion the matter was
sent to the courts for settlement. The
matter IN controversy is whether the
bonds should be issued under the general
assessment of 1889 or under that of 1890.
The constitution provides that in bond
ing an Indebtedness the basis for issuing
the bonds should be the last general as
sme prior to the adoption of the
constitution. 1t has been decided by the
courts hat the constitution was adopted
on July 10, 1890, the day upon which, by
an act of congress, Wyoming became a
oAhlt- n Ahhb Nlhb llb hhoSnoultuA W
1890 had not been entirely completed and
the question for the supreme court to de-
eide in the case, is which assessment is
the one prior to the adoption of the con-
stitution, The case is a friendly contest
between the two parties. 1t was argued
and taken under advisement.
SUIT DECIDED
As one Of the judges was a party
interested, Judge Scott of the district
court, occupied a seat on the bench while
the opinion was being read in the case of
Iveson vs.. Caldwell & Groesbeck. The
opinion practically affirmed the Judgment
of the lower court, only modifying it by
granting two years less of interest.
WRIT GRANTED.
On application OF Leonard Wright a
writ OF habeus corpus was issued to the
sheriff commanding him to bring the body
of said Wright before the court and show
cause why, as is alleged, no has him in
unlawful custody. The writ is made re.
turnable on next Tuesday when the case
VIII pc hrRueu.
A CHEYNNE CAsE.
The case OF w. S. Smith VS.. City of
Cheyenne came up on writ Of error from
the last term of the district court, +. w.
Mann representing Smith and Lacey &
NanDevanter the city. The case was
argued and submitted for a decision. The
case of G. W. Smith VS.. Henry Harrlng
ton is before the court on a writ of error,
but as it is identically similar will be
decided by the opinion in the case of
Smith vs.. The City.
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE.
J. A. Van Orsdale was admitted to
practice before the supreme court. Mr..
Nichols. the prosecuting attorney of Crook
county. was also admitted to practice.
The court adjourned to meet today at 10
O'Clock.