Arizona weekly citizen., 1895-10-26
INJUNCTION DISSOLVED.

INJUNCTION DISSOLVED. Nogales Town O fficiaIs and Re- moves the IDjuction.
 In the District Court 1st Judicial Dis-
 trict of Arizona, Territory.
 JosEsH PAeCHoLY ct als. vs. FREDERICK HERRERA, ct als. Motion to Dissolve Injunction. The complaint Tn this action alleges that the defendants are assuming to act as the common council of the town of Nogales avering that use of the defend ants are disqualified from acting as such councllmen because DO one Of them 10 or YVES at the time of his election 8 free- holder within sad town as provided by the act of the legislature approved April l2th, 1893 "relating to the incorporation of towns, villages and cities of popula- ton of five hundred or more." Act 72, 17th legislative mbly:-that defend ants as such common council have at tempted to enact ordinances, levyiDg taxes aud imposing licences upon plain tiff5 and arc attempting to collect such taxes and licences by prosecutions for miedemeanore, ard have caused the prosecution of one of plaintiffs for an alleged violation of said ordinances Tor carrying on business without a llcence, and have made two charges against him which causes are pending in the district court on appeal, and have prosecuted many others for the same thing, and threaten 10 multiply such prosecutions and that enormous expenses will be h. creased by both parties and the town thrown hopelessly into debt and the tax able property of the plaintiffs will he hopelessly incumbered unless the acts of defendant are restrained by this court. It is also alleged that defendants have conspired together to pay certain alleged illegal debts or claims against the said town and have passed the ordinances mentioned in the complaint and made a part of it "for the purpose of levying a tax upon the property of citizens includ ipg these plaintiffs, of said town ot Mo- gales so as to raise money to be expend- ed illegally, as aforesaid; that one of the ordinances is totally void not having re- CSlVbU JIG III OCk OL NOSCS At the council." These are the salient and vital points of the complaint.
 Plant ifs ask that defendants and all persons acting under them be epjoined from farther acting as such pretended common council, etc.
 Plaintiffs do not state whht kind of business they or other one of them are engaged in for which licence is requir- ed. but by the act of the legislature above referred to authorjz ng the moor poration of towns, villages and cities. power is given the common councils of them to make ordinances imposing a Iicence on all branches of business car ried on within the limits of such incor- poration and to enforce the observance of such ordinances, and to punish viola tions thereof by fine or Imprisonment or both and by confinement at hard labor, in the direction of the magistrate or court before whom a conviction may be had.
 The ordinances complained of by plaintiffs and made part of their con- plaiut do not show on their face that they or either of them are such that the council have no power to enact. They provide for the lIceucing of certain things, and kinds of busint ss, and the mode of enforcing the collection of the llcence tax, all of which are acts the council are authorized by law to per form.
 The allegation that the money to be raised by said licences will be devoted, by the council, to an illegal purpose IS not sufficient to invoke the aid of court of ctancery to prohibit the doing of al authorized act, though in fact the authors of 1t may have in mind the using of the proceeds for an illegal purpose. When they do begin such an illegal use court of equity will interpose where there IS no remedy of law, but, ito warrant re- lief in any case it must appear the acte complained of are of such 6 character that full and adequate redress cannot be had as law" 2nd High on Ipjunctious, Sec. 1243 and cases cited.
 Plaintiffs say ID their complaint that they have no other remedy than by t6is injunciion. but they also stato Ia the same complaint that two suits for the violation of these ordinances are now pending in the district court against one of these plaintiffs.
 It is not pretended that any remedy to which the parties to those suits are entitled gill not be accorded them and the validity of the ordinances under which the suits sre prosecuted, cannot be tested in those suits. An injunction Slll not be granted to restrain the pro- secution of suits before justices of the peaces for violations of city ordinances when complainant may test legality and validity of the ordinances by direct appeal from the declsion of the justices. High on Injunction Sec. l244-So 1t seems that plaintiffs not only have but have avoided themselves of an adequate remedy.
 It is we'll established principle that municipal officers will not be enioined from collecting fines imposed for the violation of municipal ordinance until the validity of the ordinance shall have been determined by proceedings at law; and au injunction will not lie Tn any case to prevent prosecution either Of criminal or quasi criminal nature. } High on lDjunctiOns Sec 1244.
 Even where a suit to declare brewery 8 nuisance was removed from the state to the United States court on apPlica- tion to the United Stated court by the petition to restrain ulany criminal pro secutions against him before certain justices of the peace for each separate sale of beer at his brewery,sn threats to impose upon him heavy fines for said alleged offences was denied: Love, circuit judge saying: It Is alleged and DO doubt truly, that if the defendants be permitted to vex and pursue the plaintiff with nuplberless criminal prosecutions before justices of the peace and other state tribunals, the plaintiff will be compelled to abandon his business, and that his brewery property will be render ed useless and valueiess. We are thus
 brought face to face with the question
 whether or not court of equity has
 any power to interfere by injunction or