Evening journal., 1893-11-09
WANTED AN INJUNCTION
Argument on the Dougherty
Case Begun This Morning
BEFORE CHANCELLOR wOLoOTT.

Dougherty ON Petition Of His Sureties.
When They Entered Into the Bond
They Had Protection and Rights I'm
der the Statutes.
The fight of John Dougherty and |
his bondsmen to prevent the county from
collecting $l6 1913 43, with interest from
June 3 1891, began in earnest before
Chancellor Wolcott at the Court House |
to-day Edward G. Bradford and |
Lewis c Vandegrift represented the
county. Colonel Benjamin Nieds and |
Senator George Gray. were solicitors for |
the bondsmen and Harry Emmons rep
resented the Security Trust and Safe De
post Company, which has the Beers
estate in charge.
Several of the bondsmen and a number
Of lawyers were present to hear the
argument
The case, in a nutshell, is this
/ Dougherty was SIG, 1853 43 short in his
settlement with the county as collector
of taxes for Wilmington hundred on the
duplicate of 1890. The county refused
to remove him on petition Of his sureties
or to relieve them, and proceeded upon
the official bond of the sureties. Several
Il
the sheriff proceeded to advertise the
property of Dougherty and his bondsmen
for sale.
Through Solicitor Harry Emmons the
sureties obtained a restraining order
from the chancellor IL prevented the
sheriff from proceeding with the sales
He took an indemnifying bond aud
allowed the sureties TO proceed with
their business.
A rule was issued, returnable to day,
requiring the county to show cause why
the restraining order should not be made
preliminary injunction. That rule is
what brought about the argument to.
day. If the chancellor DEGREES that
preliminary injunction shall issue then
the sureties will push for a permanent
injunction. But If the chancellor refuses
the preliminary injunction the sheriff
will proceed with the sale.
There Was Some Delay.
The hearing was to have been held in
the Levy Court room but it was too small
for such q big argument and the court
repaired to the court room above. There
some delay was occasioned by the solicit
tors or the sureties presenting an
amended bill of complaint After con-
sultation, it was agreed TO, in the main,
by Messrs Bradford and VANDERBILT.
Mr.. Bradford then presented affidaYits
from Andrew S. Elisson, Richard G.
Buckingham and John W. JOlls, mem
bers of the Levy Court which refused
to grant the sureties relief when they
! petitioned for Dougherty's removal and
the appointment of a successor to him
Only one Of the affidavits was read. II
detailed the circumstances which led NJ
to the present proceeding and which
have been published time and time
, | again since the tax Office scandal.
d Mr.. Bradford made a motion to quasi
the application for a preliminary injunc
ton. This was followed by light Skin
: nishing all along the line and it wal
9 almost - o'clock before argument began
Colonel Nields having the opening
Argument Opened by Colonel Nields.
f He admitted that Dougherty was tax col
lector and that he had certain bondsmen
r. He then read Dougherty's official BON
n and said;
i cat the time this bond was entered
81 into there were laws affecting his duties
(; There were dnties and conditions in tn
n statutes which bound him as fully an
/. effectually as though they had bee
written IN the bond. There were ais
conditions imposed upon the Levy Cour
5 by the statutes. There were rights Sc
cured and given to the sureties in tina
n bond, aod there was a subsisting statut
" and law at the time and they were par
= of the obligation the bondsmen assumed
as "At the time that obligation was en-
,e tered into there were duties imposed b
al statute on the collector aud Levy Court
W snd there we're rights secured by law {
"a the sureties. The law provided that
N...l 1..1H .
at they had sustained, or would sustai
m loss they might petition for his remova
p and It should be the duty of the Lev
ID Court, after examination, to n
In move the collector and appoint
he successor. The law provided tbs
10 the taxes uncollected by the remove
collector should be collected by his sue
Id cessor and applied to diminish the liz
d bility of the sureties. I say these dutie
ia and these rights are part of this col
ce tract. It is the duty to inquire into ii
vn danger and not to send for counsel (
inquire into the effect of some subs
quent law.
THAT statute goes farther 1t make
the duty of the Levy Court imperatiy
and mandatory. We will not questio
that farther. They shall have power I
.. restrain and remove In this case Il
Levy court utu kuOWleuBe IL WI
OF brought home to them. knowledge is M
sy opinion. The fact that $4,000 RENAME
We on the duplicate ard 81, 800 RENAME
ne unaccounted for in Dougherty's han'
ne was brought home TO them Justice dc
ne mauded that petition be granted The
rl1 had no redress in the world exceptiI
-er under that act
IL, In support of the position that Git W
ne the duty Of the Levy Court TO grant ii
me petition be cited a number Of author
'ne ties
,o, Justice Demanded Action.
lite Justice demanded that the sureti
his should have SHAT power exercised
7ill their behalf by the Levy Court. T
minutes of the Levy Court will sho
that for months and months they hi
been trying to get out Of Dougherty Z
.t.- money be held for the year 1889 ss W,
~, as 1890"
,ro 1t is understood that Mr. Bradford W
-, contend that the statutes referred to b
~ been repealed and the Five Commssio