Evening journal., 1894-03-27
DOUGHERTY IMBROGLIO.
The County's Answer Filed
BY Edward G. Bradford.
QUALITY OF MERCY NOT STRAINED

II Falleth Like Brick Chancellor
Asked to Dismiss the Bill Restraining
the sheriff From Selling the Property
Of the Recreant Collectors Bondsnen
Edward G Bradford, counsel for the
Levy Court, has iled. in the Court of
Chancery, the countys answer in the in
junction proceedings instituted by
Joseph Stoeckle, Bernard Bonner, Hugh
Lynch, John McClafferty and Thomas
Toy, boudsmen of John J. Dougherty
ex county tax collector
The defendants admit the appoint
ment Of Dougherty aud that he gave
bond in the penal sum lof $1O0, coo. with
the complainants as suretieg. That on
July 9. 1890. the Levy Court
caused judgment TO be entered
upon the bond. That John
beers died on March 3. 1891 and that the
Secu ity Trust snd Safe Deposit Com
pany was granted letters Of adminietra-
lion upon his estate.
The defendants further admit that the
sureties did, May 90. 1891, petition the
Levy Court TO restrain Dougherty from
further collection Of any taxes committed
to him for collection, aud that the petition
Was duly verified by the oaths OF the sign
ers, but deny that after the official
term Of Doughtery as collector had ex
pired the sureties had reason to nppre
hend loss by reason Of their suretyship
for Doug herty. in any other sense than
that in which sursties on the official
bonds Of collectors of taxes incur liability
for the official defaults Of their prin-
cipals.
It is denied that upon the presenta-
tion TO the Levy Court Of the petitions
and statement, the Levy Court did not
then or at any time thereafter inquire
into the matter, but wholly neglected
aud refused to make such inquiry as
stated in the bill; but, on the contrary,
aver that the Levy Court inquired into
the matter presented.
lhe defendants admit that the Levy
Court refused TO issue an order restrain
ing Dougherty from the further collec-
tion Of taxes, and 20 appoint Ia collector
TO collect the residue of taxes uncollec-
ted by Dougherty. but other allegations
in the paragraph they are advised that
10 is not necessary for them to answer.
for the reason that they relate to infer.
ences CT conclusions of law and not to
facts
It is admitted that Dougherty did not
account to the Levy Court for the taxes
thereafter collected by him, but whether
he did or not use proper diligence Ito col.
lec5 the residue.ot the taxes these de-
PENDANTS have no knowledge. They
deny that the Levy Court refused
/ TO inquire into the books aRa
/ accounts of Dougherty They admit
| ths issuing Of the writ of execution on
the bond ana the seizure of the goods OF
| the complainants. I hey hold that the
contract between the complainRnts as
as sureties OF Dougherty to the state
was not materially altered or modified To
the prejudice Of the complainants as
sureties.
They believe the action Of the Levy
Court was not an impairment Of the OBJ.
/ ligat.cn Of the contract existing between
the cOmplaiuants and the state. The
complainants are liable on the judgment
/ for the sum Of SIG 1853 49, together with
| interest. In addition to the
| advice Of counsel and attorney Of the
Levy Court there were other and suf-
/ hcient reasons. which Influenced and de-
termined the Levy Court TO refuse
to restrain Dougherty from the further
] NNAINaAANA VI iaAce NNm mnlNAtu 10 MN
The granting or refusal of the prayer Of
the petitions was a matter discretionary
with the Levy Court, and that the liza.
bility Of Dougherty and his sureties hav-
ing become fixed the refusal TO relieve wa
neither an alteration of the contract nos
| impairments thereof and the sureties ar
still bound Such refusal could not sf.
feet the right of the Levy Court to col
lect the sum due from Dougherty, nor
could the right to enforce the collection
of the judgment be defeated or i'm
paired by any failure on the part Of the
Levy Court TO inquire into the matter.
In conclusion the defendants pray to be
dismissed with their reasonable costs in
this behalf most wrongfully sustained. '