Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-04-02
TIE pouG u ERrY cAsE.
The Case of Ex-Tax- Collector DouGhert
Bondsmen VS.. The Levy court,

Bondsmen VS.. The Levy court.
Tho cages of ex-Tax Collector John j.
Dougherty's bondsmen VS.. the Levy
Court was at last brought to argument
before Chancellor Nicholson Tuesday.
The complainant's counsel comprised
senator Gray, Benjamin Nields and
Harry Emmons. MeBsrs. Emmons and
Nields were present. For the Levy
Court E. q. Bradford and Lewis @.
Vandegrift appeared.
Mr.. Nields read the bill Of complaint
section by section, and Mr.. Bradford
read the answers to the respective alle-
cations. Mr.. Nields continued reading
complainants' brief.
From the statement of the case in
complainants' brief it appears that in
February, 1890, John ]. Dougherty was
appointed tax collector for the Northern
district of Wilmington. On July 9Th,
1890, his official bond was entered into
with Joseph Stoecklo, Bernard Bonner,
Hugh Lynch, Thomas Toy, John A.
Beers, William McMenamin and John
ii. McClafferty as sureties. In May
OF tho following year a number of tho
sureties petitioned the Lovy Court to
restrain Dougherty from further collec.
tion of taxes, as they believed that
they would sustain loss. The court,
however, after hearing from their at
torney, L. G. Bradford, indefinitely
postponed the matter.
In the answer of the Levy Court it
is held that Dougherty's bondsmen are
liable on the judgment entered for the
sum of SIG, 353. 43, with interest thereon
from June 23d, 1891.
The contention OF the sureties is that
by the act of 1877 they had right to
petition the Levy Court to restrain
Dougherty from collecting any other
taxes and to appoint another man; and
that the taxes collected BY his successor
should be credit on the account be-
tween the county and Dougherty and
thus they would be relieved to the ex-
tent of the taxes collected by the new
man. And as the Levy Court did not
grant the petition they could not be
held for the taxes uncollected by Dough-
erty and for which he and they were
liable on his bond as collector.
Benjamin Nlelds concluded the OPEN
ing argument on behalf of the COM
plainants in the case of ex-Tax Collec.
tor Dougherty's bondsmen vs.. tho Levy
Court before Chancellor Nicholson,
shortly before o'clock Tuesday after
noon. He was followed by Lewis O.
Vandegrft for the defendants.
Mr.. Vandogrift contended that the
action Of the Levy Court was entirely
discretionary under the act of the Leg
isature Of March, 1877, and if they
thought tho interest of the county would
be injured by granting the petition,
they had right TO stand on the judg-
ment already entered of record against
Dougherty and his sureties, and by
which, under the laws of the State,
their liability for the amount of uncol-
lected taxes had become fixed; and
that in the act Of March, 1877, the
words, "Shall havo power, were per-
missive only and not mandatory and
could not create any new right on the
part of the sureties.
He further held that aside from the
provisions OF that act the sureties had
no right either at law or in equity to
he relieved in any manner from their
contract of suretyship, and that, there
fore, the words of the statute being
permissive, the Levy Court could prop
erly exercise its discretion in declining
TO grant tho prayer of the sureties to
be relieved.
There was some talk at tho Court
IlOube lesIoTllhH HuTHluR COucernluB u
clash between opposing counsel in the
Dougherty argument on Tuesday. 1t
occurred while Col. Benjamin Nields
was addressing the Chancellor. Tho
speaker was discussing tho action of
the Levy Court in not granting tho
petition of Dougherty's sureties to re-
strain from collecting any more taxes.
This action had followed tho presenta-
tion of Mr.. Bradford's opinion to the
Levy Court upon the Five Commits
sioners' bill, and Col. Nields declared
that the action of the Levy Court was
for political purposes. Mr.. Bradford
repelled any insinuation against his
opinion and both gentlemon became
heated. Mr. Nields went on to say
that he did not attribute any wrong to
Mr.. Bradford, but he did not take back
the statement that the action was for
political effect Col. Nields also made
u remark to the effect that it was not
proper for one member of the bar to
say that another member was not
stating the truth.