Birmingham age-herald., 1895-03-19
IN THE COURTS.

proceedings of George H. Bodeker vs. the mayor and aldermen of Birmingham.
 MT. H. c. Selheimer, attorney for the city, demurred to the petitions as follows:
 1. Because said petition fails to allege or show that prior to the passage of Said act Of the assembly, in said petition set forth, the mayor and aldermen of Birmingham were pay said petitioner for the services alleged to have been rendered by him in said peti- ton aud in said act of the assem- bly,.
 2. Because said petition fails to allege any facts which show or tend to show that before the passage of the act of the assem- ply, in said petition set forth, any debt or claim existed against said mayor and alder men of Birmingham In favor of said peti- tioner.
 8. Because said petition fails to allege any facts which show or tend to show that prior to the passage Of said act of assembly any debt or claim existed against said mayor, and aldermen of Birmingham in favor of petitioner for services alleged in said petition and in said act of assembly 10 have beeu performed by pe- tltioner which said mayor and aldermen of Birmingham were under any moral or equitable obligation to pay.
 4. Because said petition fails to show aud alege that any debt or claim, legal, moral or equitable. existed against the mayor and aldermen of Birmingham iu favor of said petitioner prior to the passage of said act oi assembly.
 5. Because said petition fails to allege and show that the services alleged therein to have been performed by petitioner were performed at the request, or by or with tue consent or with the Knowledge Of the mayor and aldermen of Birmingham, or of the board of mayor and aldermen of said city.
 6. Because said petition fails to allege and show that said act of assembly was pro- cured with the knowledge Of. or it's enact- meut assented to, or that it was subse- queutly recognized or ratified by the mayor and aldermen oi Birmin gham, or by the board of mayor and aldermen of said city, or by any one authorized to procure, assent to, recognize or ratify the same.
 '. Because said act of assem- ply is an al tempt by the general assembly to author ize, and does in words authorize, a munic- ipal corporation or city of this state 10 grant public money ia aid of or to an indl- vidual.
 8. Because said act of assembly is viola tive of section 55, article 1, of the coustitu- tion of Alabama, and is, therefore, void and confers no right ca petitioner.
 g. Because said act of assembly Is an at- tempt on the part of the legislature to ex- ercisc judicial power, and Is unconhtitu- tional and void.
 10. Because said act of assembly def- nitely fixes amount due petitioner, and is an attempt on the part of the legislature to exercise judicial powers.
 Il. Because said act of assembly under takes to ascertain and determine that ser- vices have been performed by petitioner, and is an attempt on the part of the legisla- ture to exercise judicial powers.
 12. Because said act of assembly Is an at. tempt to create a debt against the mayor and aldermen of Birmingham, without it's consent and against it's will, which did not exist before the enactment of the same, and said act is, therefore,, beyond the power of the legislature, and is not binding on said mayor and aldermen of Birming- ham.
 IS. Because said act of assembly is an at- tempt to deprive the mayor and aldermen of Birmingham of it's property without due process of law, and is therefore violative of section of act Of the constitution of Ala
 bama, and not binding on said mayor and aldermen of Birmingham.
 IA. Because it appears from the allega, tions of said petition that if any services were rendered by petitioner as therein al- legged, the same were rendered under and byvirtue of a cdntrsct of employme ntnade and the power of said board of police com missiouers to create any debt or claim against the mayor and aldermen Of Bir- mingham is prohibited by provisions of the constitution of Alabama.
 15, Because if any debt or claim, legal, equitable or moral, existed in favor of pe- tilioner against the mayor and aldermen of Birmingham prior to the passage of said act of assembly, the same is shown by the allegations of said petitioner to have arisen by virtue of a contract made by the board oI police commissioners, and said contract was void and could not be ratified by the legislature. Two amendments were made to the sec- ond count as follows: Gal Because said petition shows that prior to the passage of said act of assembly the claim of petitioner was not a legal claim. but was void and unepforoible against the city.
 (b) Because said petition shows that prior to the passage of said act of assembly no claim or debt, legal, equitable or moral, existed in favor of petitioner against the city.
 A similar case between John s. Oldham and the mayor and aldermen will be taken up as soon as the one now under considera- tion is disposed of.
 The default docket was called in the first division by Judge WIlkerson and judg- ments entered as follows: R.. Bryan vs. N; F. Thompson, de- judgment against defendant for SPAS. 3s. O'Bryan Bros. vs. Coaldale Brick and
 Tile company; judgment for plaintiff for S493 s4.
 O,Eryan Bros. vs. John w. Sibley; .iudg.
 ment for plaintiff for s493. 9l. Yesterdays docket was called and dis posed of in the following manner: American National bank vs. w. A. l Ckenoweth ct all; continued. R. s. Gross, administrator, vs. Birn,ing- ham Furnace and Manufacturing com pany; dismissed.
 William E. Richie vs. Alabama Great | Southern Railway company, damages; on trial
 W. P. Kearnsy, assignee of k. D. Bur. nett & Co.,, sued out an attachment in the city court yesterday against Kidder & Gil- bert for S7s5, which complainant alleges is due. The complaint alleges that Kidder & Gilbert have fraudulenuy disposed of their stock.
 Inries wara nrranizad Yesterday as fnl-