The record-union., 1896-09-19
THREE DEMURRERS ARGUED.
What Are the Powers Of the Board Of
Supervisors
Arguments Before Judge Hunt on
the Injunction Against the
Bridge Payment

The case of E. j. Croly, VINO asks
an injunction against the treasurer
Auditor and Board Of Supervisors OF
tEls county to prevent them from pay
Ing the remaining $1,000 due under
the agreement of the board with the
railroad company in aid OF the con-
struction of the overhead roadway
across the Sacramento River was neard
III the Superior Court yesterday morn
ing, Judge Hunt of San Francisco pre-
siding in Judge Johnson's court.
A l.. Hart represented the company
and District Attorney Ryan, Assistant
District Attorney Jones and 5. 5. Holl
represented Croly.
The argument was upon the demur-
rer to Croly's amended complaint, and
Attorney Hart made the point that
there was a misjoinder of persons in
the complaint, as the duties of the
Treasurer. Auditor and Board of Super
visors were entirely different and dis
tinct, the Treasurer having nothing -
do with allowing the bills or drawing
the warrants the Auditor having moth
ing to do with allowing the bills or
paying them and the Supervisors hav-
ing nothing to do with drawing the
Warrants or paying them. Each per-
son should therefore be enjoined sepa-
rately, if at all.
He argued that the complaint was
drawn in such way that it avoided
the real issue. He called attention to
the language of the complaint, which
stated that the bridge was the sole
property and for the sole use of the
California Pacific Railroad, and point
ed out that the structure in question
was in no sense a bridge, but was an
overhead roadway above the railroad
bridge.
The allegation with regard to there
being no advertising for bids, he ar
gued, had no force, because there was
only one party who could possibly have
any chance or right to bid on the
structure, and that was the California
Pacific Company. The complaint
speaks Of the bridge, claiming that it
is for the use and benefit Of the rail
road company, but says nothing of the
overhead roadway and does not claim
that it is not dedicated to the use Of
the public. 1t carefully avoids making
any reference to the overhead roadway.
In the bill that was audited by the
Board of Supervisors the structure is
described as an overhead roadway over
the bridge. This roadway was for the
use of the public and is distinct from
the bridge itself, which is for the use
OF the railroad company.
He attacked the Joinder in the COM
plant of the California Pacific Com
pany and the Southern Pacific Com
pany, and said that he did not see how
the complainant could expect to hold
the former liable for damages in re-
ceiving a warrant which the complaint
itself alleges is void. and which the
company did nothing but indorse and
transfer to another company. If the
warrant was void the county cannot
claim to have incurred damages. Both
the claims and the transfers show
that they We're made on account of an
overhead roadway and not as a rail-
road bridge, as the complaint alleges
it was.
While the claim is only for part of
the construction of the overhead rail-
way, even conceding for the sake of
argument that the structure was a
bridge. the complainant meets at the
outset an obstacle. 1t is conceded that
in all cases where a special tribunal is
created for the purpose of passing upon
financial or other questions except in
upon an allegation of fraud, it has the
right to allow claims. The power of
the Board of Supervisors has the right
to pass upon and allow claims. There
is no one who will deny that the board
has right to build bridges for the use
of the public. The Board of Supervis-
ors have also the right to build a bridge
between two counties without advertis-
irg under the Political Code. The only
question is, then, whether the board
expended the money for the public use
and convenience or not. 1t can only be
inquired into then, whether upon the
face of the bill the board had the right
to allow it.
The question of advertising cannot
therefore be taken up by going behind
the bill The complainant wishes the
court to enjoin the board from auditing
the claim. and to comply with his wishes
would convert the court into an audit
ing court and take away from the Board
Of Supervisors the powers given them by
the Legislature: and if it can be used
IN one case. il can be done in all. In