Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-01-03
The MANDAMUS CASE
BEING HEARD ny DISTRICT
JUDGE GREENE.
City Of Fort Worth vs.. Max Elser-Man-

City Of Fort Worth vs.. Max Elser-Man
daiuua.
This cause came on to bo heard befor,
Judge Greene on yesterday For oOnven'
ience Of reference 10 authorities, the
hearing was had la the courtroom Of the
court Of civil appeals,
After presenting the .plcadlngs, argu
ment was had on the demurrers to the
Vlolnili's petition,
ARGUMENT or CAPT BALL.
viii state 10 the court by WY Of pro
liminqry remark that the plaintiff ia this
ease ~ DESTROYS Of having The cnntrO-
Neried questions Of law which have Iriscn
81 this matter speedily settled aud de-
termlned. nor only by this court but by
the courts Of highest resort. II II be neces-
parry 10 tnke Tie ease there: and we have
inioiposed orr demurrer first 10 tho form
IN which the plaintiffs petition Is pre-
senlel NOT with amy object of delay or
taxing any advantage Of any technically
10 work any delay, but simply for the
reason that, AZ j. well known the su-
promo court VIII not consider case
when Il Is apparent upol he face of tho
paper that thcrn Is 70 Fundamental error
IN bringing the case with reference to
parties or substance. u would simply BE-
WORKING sun greater delay IL We W0rn
20 iah 10 work that point IN this c1se,
and 4 is for thai reason we urge thar This
petition Is not rigitfuly brought by tho
city. The city cannot invoke The COURTS
writ of uandHmus ia this case because
n has no such interest in the pnytprnt
OF these drafts IN controversy. and can
lioll u1 SuCh INJURY by lhrir non-plymont
as would give Il the right TO invoke tlie
mandamus in rs behalf The drafts arc
payable 10 the order Of Il. 10 Harold.
cashier Of the First national bank. far
We use ma bmeit Of one Blair 4 Co. OF
inM iuTN. hnlr " ~, are the bcncli-
VA I'll.
az alleged 10 have refused 20 pay. We
llunk under the authorities thar 10 was
necessary tLnt the petition should disclose
Que or TWO thlnRs IN order TO cptitlc tho
euner mar lhoro i q public duty 10 be
performed by. the defendant. public oiIi-
slNl puiy Sueh as he as n citizen has an
ihtcttel IN, anu snoL as all citizens have
~ interest ~ or that the duty which
trn Hnusst 10 compel tue officer TO per
closely connected with The plaintiffs that
lhr hpnrperlormnuce ~ such duty would !
Work an injury 70 Him. In this c0nnec- |
,'on W. pck 20 eau your honor's attention |
VIVA fr,,r tili5 ON nat Subject ,,,
s.ti,.t,t 'a tuli iliEh, H''r hVa aud 43l; !
81, ;' 'gulnEs are frequently Instituted by /
-, ~ " nllun oil ihr attorney general |
a I,Iii w., gI2iillulHfy x one which Affects !
AN nrtion ma, ~ ~, I'nk Muetlcr /
commencement thn fn,trnii;''e. "! W. ~
rrdrpss MINI Whlen u y sought 10
The pnbijc intucrests W. u ,gtut, Niircthg I
privdln int,rr ,'Itt Nnotn1r ~ " 4
,irbts IL H.. ni,ll Vi'Nl' unly private
pfocecdlne si,o,,iJ bc t. r,G ~ gns,1 me
inrnev-r general Int In r,a WEI, ,ii't,' ,nc 9l-
the persons In jnt"rost 'ift' r'"1s 10y
however, held mat when tho NIX, n"s n'pi,
performance h sought Il Of n6l,lic nnl
iurc. and due from th, r.'nip, nI',v va,
The public al lnrge. hut moi ~ a ,,,,,,., no
mcnt as such. M nrocsniint.s
brought by private citigcns v,Itbn,,} a.
Intervention Of he attorn"v-t.cnerai ~
regards the degree Of interest ON thc mar,
SropeT n ngior o 5eG ,ghdss to make him
proceeding NAV he ns,th,tnJ 'i@', 5Ii,t 10
lion IS llkcn between cases whrpe ,'' t'c
Extraordinary writ OF mandamns IL IN.
$S j S 1S ' TaaS S Of @fSsf