The oasis., 1895-10-19
INDUCTION DISSOLVED
Full Text of JhdGe Bethanc's Decision as
 Rendered Thursday.
JosErn rAsNmoLY et. als.
FREDERICK HERRERA, ct. als. Motion to Dissolve Injunction.

hAAfRhtAtAAfA - AfRAtttsff tAt tAfNt
 Motion to Dissolve Injunction.
 The complaint in this action allege; that the defendants are assuming tC act as the common council of the town of Nogales ayering that use of defend ants are disqualified from acting as such councilmen because no one oi them ls or was at the time of his cleo tion free holder within said town as provided by the act Of tue legislature approved April I2th, lsaa relating to the incorporation of towns, villages and cities of population Of five hun dred or more Act -, l7th lcgisla tive assembly; that defendants as such council have attempted to enact ordinances, legying taxes and impOs- ing licenses by prosecutions for nis- demean0rs. and have caused the pros ccutiOn Of one uf plaintiffs for an alleged violation Of said ordinances for carrying on business without d license, anu have made two charges against him which causes are pending in the district court On appeal anu have prosecuted many others for tue same thing, and threaten to multiply such prosecutions and that enormous expenses will De increased by both parties and the town thrown hope lessly into debt and the taxable property Of the plaintiffs will be hope iessiy incumbered unless the acts of defendant are restrained by tlils court. It is also alleged that defendants have c0nspired together t0 pay certain ai- legged illegal debts or claims against the said town and have passed the ordinances mentioned in the com pIaint and made part of it flor the purpose of ievying tax up0n the property Of citizens including these plaintiffs. of said town Of Nogales So as Go raise money to be expenaed ille- gally, as aforesaid; that one Ot the ordinances is totally void not having received the requisite number of votes in the council.n These are the salient and vital points of the complaint.
 Plaintiffs ask that defendants and all persons acting under them be en- joined from farther acting as such pre- tended common council, etc.
 Plaintiffs do not state what kind of business they or either one of them are engaged n for which license is re- quired, but by the act of the legisla- ture above referred tu authorizing the incorporation Of towns, villages and cities, power is given the common councils Of them t0 make ordinances imposing q license on all branches Of business carried on within the limits of such incorporation and to enforce the observances Of such ordinances, and to punish violations thereof by fine or imprisonment or both aud by confinement at hard labor in the di- rection of the magistrate or court be- fore whom conviction may be had.
 The ordinances complained of by plaintiffs and made part of their complaint do n0ts how on their faces that they or either of them are such the council have no power to enact. They provide fer the licensing ot cer- tain things, and kinds of business, and the mode of enforcing the collection of the liceGse tax, all of which are acts the council are authorized by law to perform.
 The allegation that the money to be raised by said licenses will be devoted by the council to an illegal purpose is not sullicient to invoke the aid of q courtof chancery Go prohibit the do- ing of an authorized act, though in fact the authors of it may have in mind the using of the proceeds for an illegal purpose. When they do begin such an Illegal use ll court of equity will fnteFp9se where there is no rem edy of law, but "to warrant relief in any case it must appear the acts com plained Of are of such Il character that full and adequate redress cannot be had at law 2nd High on lnjunctions, Sec. 1918 and cases cited.