The record-union., 1891-04-25
LITIGATION THICKENING.
Still More Trouble Over the "Bee's"
Advertising Bill.
z. A, Burr in the Case-Complications
Between the District Attorney
and Attorneys Johnson.

District Attorney Ryan served the fol-
lowing notice upon County Clerk Rhoads
yesterday morning:
In the Superior Court, in and for the County
of Sacramento, in the State OF Caliiornla.
Sacramento County, plaintlH, vs. ChariotIe
McClatchy. V. =. McClatchy ana Z. h. NC
CATCHY, copartners, doing business under The
firm name of James McClatchy " Co., oe-
PENDANTS.
10 ~. W. RhoQds, County Clerk: You will
please enter dismissal of the above-entitIed
action. The complaint in said action was filed
without my signature and the proper re t,y auIlor-
District Attorney Sacramento County.
AN OBJECTION.
The law firm of Johnson, Johnson &
johnson, who filed the complaint in the
case referred to in Mr.. Ryan's notifica-
ton, and allege that it was with Mr..
Ryan's consent, objected to Mr.. Rhoads
dismissing the suit, and later in the day
forwarded the following to him:
w. " RhoadS County Cgerk-DEAR SIR: We
are attorneys for the plaintiff in the case OF
Sacramento County against Charlotte Nc
CATCHY C. K. McClatchy and " $. McClatchy,
being number 4, ,704 of cases IN the superior
Court-as well as Mr.. Frank ID. Ryan, and
have the same rights and powers as he. we
do not wish the case dismissed. We intend TO
prosecute it. The complaint IS signed prop
erly by the attorneys for the plaintiff. We de
cidedly and earnestly protest ana opJecG
against the dismissal of the case. We ask OF
YOU therefore, that you do not dismiss the ac-
tion until the Court passes upon the question
as to whether, when there are two attorneys
in an action for plaintiff, one can dismiss the
action without and against the wish OF the
other, and also against the wish Of the client.
Very truly yours,
Johnson, JOHNSON & JOHNSON.
AWKWARD POSITION.
Mr.. Rhoads, being thus placed between
two fires, as it were, declared that he
would defer action in the matter until
after he had consulted his attorney,
Charles T. Jones, who is at present out OF
the city.
The communications had hardly got
cold in Clerk Rhoads' desk before y. NJ.
Johnson appeared in the office and filed
another formidable looking document.
This document bore the legend: 'E. \.
Burr VS.. The Board of Supervisors of
Sacramento County," and was an af1i-
davit sworn to by Burr before Albert NJ.
Johnson, Notary Public.
This affidavit was in the nature of a
petition to the Superior Court for writ
of review, and alleged among
other things, that the Supervisors on
the 1lth of April heard and considered the
claim of James McClatchy 4 Co. for 81 ,557
for advertising, and the board allowed
said firm 81, 81. but this demand,' -
continues Burr in his affidavit, twas not
duly or otherwise verified as to its cor
otherwise verified, was ever presented to
or filed with the clerk of the board. In
so doing the said respondents did, as this
petitioner is informed and believes, act
without and in excess of their jurisdic-
ton, and illegally and without warrant
of law; and this petitioner has no plain,
speedy or adequate remedy at law in the
premises"
Mr.. Burr then goes on to formally ask
for q writ of review directed to the Board
of Supervisors, commanding the board to
certify to its proceedings to the end that
the action of the board may be inquired
into. He also asks that the order Of the
board allowing the claim be annulled and
set aside, and that he be given other and
further relief in the premises.
Mr.. Johnson next took the affidavit
into the Superior Court before Judge
Grant, and the latter made an order to the
effect that the writ issue, and be made re-
turnable on May 1st.