Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-03-26
COUnTY'S DEBT LIMIT
Tho Pleasant Valley Coal Co. InStl-
luleS MandamlS Proceedings.
JUDGE CHERRY ISSUES THE WRIT.
Made Rc;urnable April III rd-YOrd CT
In the bowman Case-COurt
Notes.

With determination to test the
question whether Salt Lake county ex.
oeeded It's legal debt limit In 1896, n
now action was oommsncei today in
the Third distrlet court, In which the
Pleasant Valley Coal company is
plaintiff anu board OF county com.
missionsts defendant.
This action is proceeding In which
plaintiff applies for writ OF man
date, to compel tho defendant board
to allow olain in favor OF
plaintiff in the tum OF S5l, for coal
lurnished to the Company during the
month OF December, 1895, for use at
the county Jail.
This bill 10 one OF the number Of
claims that were filed In January Of
the present year, for services rendered
amt material furnished the county In
December. 1896, which the present
board refused 10 allow, or In any way
recognize.
This action being based upon q claim
not yet allowed by the board, enables
the PLAINTIFF attorneys to bring up
the question OF the county's entire
financial transactions for the whole OF
the year 1896; the last item In the
claim sued upon being for coal de.
llveEed In December, 1896.
In the flung OF this action the diff
cultles encou uttered in the former SUIT
OF John A. Frltsch VS. the same de-
fondRnt are avoided in this WY;
EFffgnh hFnnUhE
warrants already issued, alleging that
deienuaui's refusal TO provide for the
payment Of the same. The bupr eme
Court held that the action was brought
against the wrong defendant, and
said that the county treasurer was the
proper party to bring suit against,
that the board OF county commission.
eTs, after having allowed u Claim aud
ordered warrant drawn upon the
county treasurer, mad nothing what
ever to do with the payment OF such
warrant.
In the present case the suit ia brought
to compel the board to perform n DUTY
i'm posed upon 1t by Law, whicn IL 10
allow or reject elaine tileu against the
county.
The sfii iavlt, as filed today alleges =,
as the basis upon which tue plaintiff
is entitled TO the rolief demanded, that
600 le.,al revenues Tor 1886 we're S28ls
created by the county in said year
was S222, 6l6.l2, ana that tue revenues
excessed ths debts In the sum OF
S44 .s93.2S.
Ii luElner alleges that the defendant
board, in making its estimate OF the
debts created In 1896, wrODgiuliy in.
clude certain claims audited In 1896,
In favor Of the Slate, the city, tho
board OF education anu the school dis
lricts Of the county Tor amounts aggre.
gazing 2,s6O.sS.
The liabilities, on these claims,
plaintiff further Glle.e arose prior tO
January let, 1896 and tnat they are not
properly cuargeaole us debts OF that
year.
Plaintiff lurther Gays that the board
wt0ngiuliy Included in Its estimate,
upon which the contention Is made
that the legal debt limit was exceeded
in 1896, iulerest on $3.50, 2O5 73 cJuniy
watTadIs, issued prlUr To january LIST,
1895, the total or which Interest
amounted to SIS, S34.lS, anu also that
they wrongfuily INCLUDE IN their esti-
mate, The Bmouut OF $40. 1864 ap.
pruptiated January 2nu, 1897, and
81 ,ofo on thp bthNdhs VI Sihihn NV soN
acted upon, and the sum VI S4,39O.96
account OF juror aud witnesses certih.
cateB Issued In 1885.
Paint Il then gOes on to say that by
aduing those amounts to the Indebted
ness incurred, created Tor the expenses
OF 1896, the board made IL appear that
the total debt for 1896 was S277, 57l so,
and by wrOngiully ueductins from the
revenues Of the cIuuly for that year
the amounts received on 1894 05
taxes, and on tax sale redemptiODs
aud the cash In tns county treasury
January l, 1896, the board SHOW the
revenues OF 1896, to be SlSs 444.73 anu
thereby showing an apparent excess
over revenues 10 the amount OF $685.
| l2670,
Plaintiff says that it ID upon such
showing That the defendant board
assert that the PLAINTIFF claim lie In
valid.
The alternative writ OF msndsmus
was issued by Judge Cherry and made
re,urnable Saturday, April 3td. An
effort will be made, however, to get
hIs honor to pass upon the case 10.
morrow, In order thai an appeal may
bs taken In time for the Supreme
c1urt which meets April S;J.
The attorneys Tor the plaintiff are
Bennett, HaIkness, HOwat d Bradley,
Moyle, Zane & CostigaD, Frank B.
Stephens, and ex- County Attorney q.
L. WhittemoTe.