Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1893-11-10
INJUNCTION GRANTED.
SENATOR GRAY FOR THE sURBTIEs
Bradford & Vandegrift Argue
For the County's Money.


Argument Lasted Untn Nearly O'Clock
This Afternoon-AP Preliminary IDiuno-
tion Granted and the Bondsnnen cona-
eeiied to Give $685. 900 Bond.
In the Court Of chancery Yesterday
afternoon Lewis O. VandeRrift. of coup.
sol for the county, spoke for an hour
against the granting ola preliminary in
junction preventing the sheriff from sell.
ing out his clients for the benefit Of the
county
Chancellor Wolcott said the case was
important and involved serious cues.
tions concerning New Castle county and
the ex tax collector and bandsmen. He
thought the matter should 60 to the
Court Of Errors and Appeals, and ex-
pressed the belief that IL probably would
be good thing to gIaut preliminary
Injunction.
Mr. Bradford contended that such a
decision on the part Of the court would
place him In an embarrassing position as
he was prepared TO go on with his argu-
ment He had no doubt that after he had
finished II the order would be discharged
and the count y allowed to collect its
money.
The chancellor admonisbed him that
his decision would be fual ana conclus-
I've, and seemed TO think the court Of
Errors and Appeals should dispose OF
the matter. Mr.. Bradford was allowed
TO proceed
He did not claim that the Levy Court
had inquired into the peril Of the bonds
men by examining Dougherty's books.
But he did claim that the Levy Court in.
qured into the subject and refused the
petition. The liability of the bondsmen
had become known before the petition
was granted There should be a settle
ment in March Of every year. Ii the
contention Of the other side that the
responsibility had become fixed subse-
quently, the case might as well be dis
missed.
Dougherty's bond was given to insure
the payment Of money at times fixed by
law and at the order Of the Levy Court
The bondsmen had no right TO immunity
until the bond had been satisfied The
public would not allow losses through
neglect Of a public officer The public
Is compelled to do business through
agents and they are expected to do
right In the Dougherty case the action
of the Levy Court was discretionary.
Before he had completed lis argument
court adjourned until 10 o'clock this
morning
Resuming this morning Mr. Bradford
said
Even II the Legislature had said In
the act Of 1877 that the Levy Court
shall appoint a new colector-even then
the. omission Of the Levy Court
to appoint that collector could not, by
legal possibility, discharge these sureties.
The whole scope of the act is to conserve
the public interests. The very act itself
contemplates that the public shall not
lose penny There is no authority on
the part Of the officers to cause the pub
lie TO lose It's revenue.
Under the act Of 1877, under discus
sion' the only effect OF the act is to re-
lieve the sureties Of the first collector to
the extent and only to the extent
such sums az should be collected and
turned over by the new appointee.
The chancellor interrupted him while
citing authorities and asked him a ques.
unn regarding one and it's application to
Q be case before the court
The rose by any other name would
smell as sweet said Mr. Bradford.
ANA The union. too said Senator
Gray. lLsughter
Yes, as my friend sa. s, and the
onion. too.
Chancellor-" Suppose the new collector
had been appointed and had given secur.
ity as required by that statute, and sup.
pose that new collector had defaulted,
what effect would that have had upon
the original b1nd2'
Mr. Bradford-"I take it that under
that act there would be no question but
that the old bond would hold good as
against the sureties, because the pro-
vision Of the act is that all sums col
lected by the new collector shall be
credited 20 the frst collector. II the new
collector had collected but not
, turned over, the old sureties could
have been held. Il is quite likely
that both bonds would be liable
the FIRST bond liable for the whole amount
aud the second for the amount
Of default of the second collector The
intent of that statute was to protect the
y public Why does the statute require
. he collector to give bond to the S tate
Of Delaware unless the public had some
interest In IL?
Whether you read the terms of chat
act as imposing an imperative command
or not, there is no authority under
these decisions or reason to absolve
these sureties from liability for the
" public revenue aud cause the public to
d lose a penny The act was for the pro
{ lection of both the public and
: the sureties, but the sure
q ties took the risk. public officer Is
n not authorized 20 do wrong and the sure
e ties are supposed to enter into their
l. contract of suretyship with full knowl.
q edge Of this principle.
e Il believe the power Of the Levy Court
h was discretionary. / submit, in conclu-
Il sion, there is no special Justice or equity
It in this application. The Superior
d Court was in session and the sureties
,. had a perfect right to apply TO that
70 court for a msndamus, and they would
d have secured it. But they sat still and
Is we're wholly inactive All we desire is
% to facilitate the settlement of this case,
3. as the county wants the money"
: Senator Cray for the sureties.
p He closed at 70 06 and was succeeded
by Senator Gray for the sureties. In the
course Of his argument he said;
''In this case it cannot be doubted
N that those provisions Of law existing at
; the time this contract was made entered
Ia