The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-01-01
Judge Hebbard Dissolves
an Injunction.
THE SUPERVISORS ENJoiNED.
The Court Held They Could Not Re
Restrained From Acting on the
Mayors Veto.

meeting to pass number Oh railroad anu
electric franchises over the Mayors vetoes,
were served with papers enJolnlng shem
from doing so. Determined to leave no
stone unturned to accomplish their purpose.
the Supervisors began legal battle to dis
solve the injunction.
The extraordinary zeal manifested by the
Supervisors in fighting Judicial order at
the eleventh hour in the interests OF three
railroad franchises was regarded by all as
being significant TO degree.
When the board was about to assemble
Attorney r. B. Mitchell. accompanied by
Mayor-eleet Ebert and G. E. Newton, en-
tered the chamber. Mitchell advanced to
Antiques and presented him with copy of
n complaint filed with Judge Wallace at the
Union Club at 6 O'Clock. together with the
summons Of the court restraining MIN from
taking any further action IN the matter OF
the three franchises under consideration by
the board until Friday next. mat was the
date set for hearing the matter.
Mr.. Antiques was dumfouDded at the
turn affairs had taken, and he quickly en-
tered the committee room where the super
visors, including Aver. GURUS, burning.
Taber, Carnes aud Coffee, had retired TO
discuss the situation Each was served
with a COPY Of the injunction signed Dy
Judge " Wallace, with Mr.. Newman as the
complainant, thus temporarily stopping
the proceedings.
+ The complaint reviews the circumstances
OF the passage Of the franchise order, to the
San Francisco and San Mateo hailroaa
Company, w. II. &. Fowler, ct al, for
railroad from Twenty-hIth street and 70
trero avenue to the county line, ana the
Municipal Conduit Company TO lay UNDER
ground electric wires. 1t directs especial
attention to the unseemly haste OF the
Board Of Supervisors In meeting at MD
night to pass the Mayors vet0es to print In
order that on the following evening the
orders might be passed over the Mayors
vetoes.
The complaint further alleges that the
franchises were not sought for In good falth
or for the legitimate purpose OF constructing
the works provided for. but were sought for
the purpose of selling the same to other
persons and of preventing other persons Or
corporations from obtaining franchises over
and upon the streets named in the orders.
Here was pretty mess. The Supery!s
ors, anxious as they were 10 finally pass the
franchises, hesitated, for fear OF bringing
themselves into contempt of count. They
were informed by Attorney Preston that be
had been assured by Judge Wallace that II
the order issued by him were dis0beyed he
would commit every Supervisor guilty OF
that offense TO jail for contempt,
Attorney Ruef was called In by the Su-
pervisOrs for his counsel, and in few min
utes a message was sent to Judge Hebbard
asking him if he would hear motion TO
dissolve a temporary Injunction immedl-
ately. Judge Hebbard was found at his
house, and he went to the City Hall az
once.
AT 9o'cIock the crowd fled into Judge
Hebbard's courtroom. Attorney Rnef and
City Attorney burst represented the Super
vis0rs aud r. B. Mitchell the complainant.
In response to the request Of the court
Mr.. Mitchell stated that the order assign
ing the cause to Judge Hebbard's court
had been signed by Presiding Judge Trout
at his own request Bat" resumed be, 81
could not find your Honor. and, with the
consent Of Judge Trout. l waited upon
Judge Wallace at the Union Club. where
he ordered this Injunction" -
81 wish to know il; this case is properly
III my department" said the court. the
order assigning 1t to- this department seems
to be correct. Was there reassignment to
Judge Wallace's department."
''Yes, sir" replied Mr.. Mitchell.
"Where is the order9" =
Judge Wallace has ii. / ask that l1s ta
subpenaed Ia appear in court"
The court directed subpoena issued, and
Mr.. Mitchell then asked leave to put Mr..
Ebert on the stand TO prove the existence
of the order.
cannot be heard except in Judge Walace's
department"
III object TO oral testimony" interposed
Mr.. Ruef Il do not deny the existence of
his order of reassignment, but do ask that
the court enforce the rule which provides
that Judge to whose department a case
has been assigned for trial may try the
same, if said case has subsequently been
transferred TO some other court without his
consent"
Judge Hebbard stated that he would take
no steps IN the matter until the question OF
jurisdiction was settled TO his entire salts
faction. lie therefore ordered that Judge
Wallace be sent for and recess to await his
arrival was then taken.
In the meantime the Board Of Supervisors
met and passed few unimp0rtant res0lu-
tiOns, in order to be in readiness 10 act
when the litigation in Judge Hebbard's
court was decided. This business being
transacted Taber moved that a recess be
taken until 10 As O'Clock.
'.For what reason" demanded Ebert, in
nocenty.
The chairman may answer that ques-
tion," said Taber, smiIngly.
II have nothing to say" replied Burling
haughtily.
Il will say this" said Taber. "This board
has been enjoined from acting upon ;he
Mayors vetoes of franchises granted by
this board, and motion TO dissolve that in
junction is about to be argued in Judge
Hebbard's court In case a decision is
what it is.
The recess was then taken. Ebert and
Hryer voting no.
Recognizing the importance of the pro-
ceediugs before him. Judge Hebbard de-
cided to hear the motion sitting in bank
with two other Judges. He accordingly
sent word to Judges Hunt and Sanderson,
IeQue sting them TO sit with him in the case,
Judge Heboard took the bench at 10; 80
O'Clock and announced that he had received
word from Judge Trout that he had not
reasSigned the case to Judge Wallace's
court. He therefore held that he had
proper jurisdiction to hear the matter and
would 10 So
City Attorney burst then argued the mo-
ton to dismiss the injunction. He con-
tended that the franchise complained of By
Mr. Newman had been passed in a legal
manner and that there was nothing for the
court to decide.
The real purpose of the Injunction, he
said. was to defeat the franchises by pre-
venting the board from acting upon the
Mayors vstoes. No matter what the mo
tlves OF the Supervisors might be in passing
the franchises over the Mayors vetoes as
alleged In the complaint, they are clothed
with the power to do so, and they must be
held responsible for their own acts.
w. M; fearSon, associate counsel OF Mr..
mitchell, then addressed the court, after an
admonItion of the court to be brief in order
that the case might be decided before the
close OF the year. He contended that the
single publication Of the Mayors vetoes was
insufficient and not in accordance with the
Intention OF the trainers of the consolidation
act. Such important matters as vetoes
should be published for sufficient length
of time to insure public notice and give the
people an opportunity after reflection to
pass judgment thereon. He also held that
the passage of the franchises at present
would be Illegal in that two meetings OF the
board were held on the date OF publication
oil the yetoes, these being practically one
meeting.
After brief arguments by A. Ruef and Il.
b. Mitchell the court stated that the aues-
tlons involved we're not new. He vas satls-
fed that municipal body couu not be
restrained from making such legislative
eDactments as it saw mt.
sFYet - resumed tba court sGt il in the air