Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-04-23
COURTHOUSE TO GO.
Work Of Dsmolishins tho ueaFico Build
ing 10 b Commenced at oncs.
supreme Court Of Appeals De-
ciinea TO GRANT an Iniunc-
aon-Ta.-payers May. File An
other Bill

Workmen will begin to-day the work OF
demolishing the old Henrico courthouse
and ere tonight the store on the corner
which is occupied ss the Treasurer
ONCE. will be torn down, and the nam
building win be demolished as soon there
after as possible.
The Supreme Court Of Appeals yesterday
refused TO grant an injunction to restrain
the supervisors from building ne" court
honse and a few hours after this deter
mination was made known the super
,isors met and accepted the BOND Oh
Messrs. Trexler e. Gilmore. the contract
ors. The amount Of the bond is No'VVo'
and the bondsmen are Messrs. NJ. s. Ford
w. n. Hooper, and A. ]. Chewing.
The contractors were then authorized TO
begin work at once. and signifed their
intention OF commencing the demolition
to-day.
THE INJUNCTION BILL.
The bill for an injunction. which was
prepared by Messrs. A. W. Patterson ana
q s. r. Patteson, for Messrs. Joseph
BRYAN. Lewis Ginter. X. A. Patterson, a
~. CARRIER. Y. Il. Chaifin, John Cussoils'
n. IA. Crump, James b. Winston. u. NJ.
HcIladay. and j. NJ. Fourdurean, was
irst presented TO Judge Il. r. wexford,
sitting in the Henrico Circuit Court ana
ne formally refused the Injunction, IN
order that the bill might be presented o.
rectly TO the Supreme Court of Appeals
with a view TO securing a decision from
that high tribunal. The appellate court
decided yesterday that as a court IL
hadn't Jurisdiction I'm the case, and tneh
the bill was referred 10 each OF the hVe
Judges individually. and each declined IN
turn to grant the injunction.
THE ALLEGATIONS.
The bin contained four allegations:
4 THAT the new courthouse building is
wholly unnecessary.
2 That the present location Is an I'M
desirable one from every point of view,
ana certainly no 1T place for the expen-
dlture OF public revenues upon a hand
some building.
3. That the county seat should be IN
the county, and so situated as to afford
the greatest convenience to the greatest
number Of its citizens.
4. That the proposed scheme is con-
trary to law.
In support OF the last allegation. the
bill says: your orators are advised.
and they aver and charge that even II
the proposed action of the Board Of S1-
pervisors were otherwise proper, there ~
no authority of law for applying the
cur IT revenues on hand for such an
ob0l II is proposed. so the board says,
to Wect new building out Of the sur
plus taxes, after satisfying all other de-
mands. But the law provides that in
laying their annual levy the board snail
designate the purposes for which the
taxes so laid shall be applied, and they
cannot be used for any other purpose
The books show that no levy has ever
been made for the building Of new
courthouse. and II follows that there
is no money on hand which can be so
employed"
NOT A FEE SIMPLE RIGHT.
The bill then goes on to recite the
fact that the title to the property on
which the courthouse now stands is
not vested in fee simple in the county of
Henrico, and the law providing that
ccurt-houses shall only be built upon
county property is quoted with a view
10 showing that the supervisors had no
legal right to build on the present site.
1t is believed that another bill making
other and different allegations will be
filed In few days.