The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-03-19
TRAVIS COUNTY AHEAD IN THE
MONTOPOLIs BRIDGE BOND
CASE.
.DEMURREROF THE COUNTY SUSTAINED
Cases Disposed of in the Fifty-Third and
the Twenty-Sixth District Courts
Yesterday-The Justices and the
Police Courts.

Judge Mccormick presiding, III the cas-
of Albert Wade VS.. Travis county, tn
special demurrer and special exceptions O
defendant to plaintiffs original petitio
was sustained and plaintiff took leave t
amend and case will probably be tried a
this term by Judge Maxey, who was he'll
not to be disqualified.
The opinion of the court in full was a
follows:
Suit is brought by the plaintiff, who i
citizen of the State of Illinois, agalns
Travis county, a municipal corporation o
the State of Texas, to recover upon inter
est coupons, which have been detached
from Al certain bonds issued BY the de
PENDANT for the purpose of building al
iron bridge across the Colorado river, De
PENDANT demurs to the petition.
Plaintiff is the owner and holder OF
coupons representing the interest due on
all of said bonds, April 10, 1898; April TO-
1891, and April 10, 1895, for $50 each
and the suit is brought to recover the
amount thereof with interest. The con
tract providing for the construction of
| The bridge and the issuance of county
| honds in novmpnt therefor was executed
| bv the King Iron Bridge and Manufac-
| tilring companv on the one hand. and the
dulv constituted county authorities Oh the
other July 3, 1888. Briefly stated, by
| the terms of the contract the Iron Bridge
| company agreed to erect the superstruc-
| ture of an iron bridge over the Colorado
river in n thorough. Workmanlike manner,
the work TO begin on the Bird day of Au-
gust. 1888. and to be completed on the
18th day of November following. In con-
sideration of the erection of the bridge
the county agreed to nav the Bridge COM
pany the sum of $4,000 in bonds, paya-
BILE in 90 wears and bearing 6 per cent in
terest, payment to be made as follows:
Fifty per cent of the value of the work
as the work progressed and the balance
on the final acceptance and completion of
the bridge.
Before entering upon the merits of the
case n preliminary question has been sug-
gested by the district Judge who is sit
ting with the circuit Judge. touch
ing the disqualification of the former TO
participate in the decision. That ques-
ton is as follows: The district Judge is
a resident and citizen of Travis county,
Texas. and a tax payer thereof. This
suit involves the validity of bonds and
coupons issued by the county. The
question arises: Has the district Judge
such direct pecuniary interest in the re.
suit of the suit as disuualifies him from
sitting in the case? Authorities examin-
ed by the court leave the ouestion in
some doubt and for the purpose of bay-
ing it definitely determined by an appel-
late tribunal, we have concluded to hold
that disqualification on the part of the
district Judge does not exist. See United
States Revised Statutes, section COL
City of Dallas VS.. Peacock. 81 s. w. Rem
300; City of Austin VS.. Male, So Texas.
$40: Moses VS.. Julian. AZ n H 10. Peel, |
VS.. Essex Freeholders. 81 n. 7, law. GIG. |
Gregory VS.. II. r. Co.. 4 Ohio State 675.
Pearce VS.. Atwood, 13 Mass. 324. The |
State ct al. VS.. Crane. 3(i n. !. law 394.
Board of Justices VS.. Fennimore, / n. J.
law, 100. And we suggest to counsel the
proprety or reserving proper exceptions
in order that the point NAV be conclusive.
ly settled by the court of appeaIs
The merits of the controversy involve
interesting, though not difficult oues-
tons for solution. The demurrers Of de-
PENDANT challenge the plaintiffs right 70
recover on the ground that. at the date of
the execution of the contract between The
Bridge company and the county. no nro-
vision was made to pay the interest on
the debt created and provide a sinking
fund, as required by the organic law
The petition and accompanying exhibits
fail to disclose that the county commits
sioners court made special provision. Inv
order or resolution, touching n sinking
fund or interest on the particular bonds
in question. But it is insited nv nlointiff
that on the Ord day of February, 1883.
the contract having been executed on
July 3, 1888, the county commissioners
court, at regular term thereof, levied
taxes for the year 1883 on the taxable
property of the county, as follows: "An
annual and ad valorem tax of 20 per cent
for general purposes: and an annual nd
valorem tax of 10 per cent for road and
bridge purposes, on each 500 worth of
property situated in said county and
taxable by law" and further that on the
18th day of February, 1889. the com
missiOners court of the county levied
taxes for the year 1889 as follows: Gan
ad valOrem tax of Is per cent on each
500 worth of property for road and
bridge purposes: and an nd yalorem INV
oI cents on each SlV0 worth of prop
erty TO create sinking fund for bridge
pon9s ana TO pay the interest of said
ponds, In this connection. it is fur
ther alleged III the petition that the de-
lehaant delivered to the Bridge company
on lts contract for erecting the bridge,
ponds as follows: On December 6, 1888.
nVe bonds: on December %, 1883, 10
Dohds' ON February II. 1889, 10 bonds,
aliu on July - 1881, the remaining % of
salu - bonds. The contention of the