Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1897-07-30
THE DUDROW CONTEMPT CASE
Judge Laughlin Decides That the Bate
man Law Did Not Authorize Dud-
row to Divert County Funds
to Purposes Not Provided
Inv Law.
by Law.
The Bateman Law Discussed at Length
and Its Intent Pointed Out
By the Court.

In the Dudrow contempt case, Judge
Laughlin yesterday rendered an impor-
tent decislon-important because it treats
at some length of the much mooted Bate
man law of the last legislature. The
court held that the respondent Dudrow
had violated the order of the court in a
mandamus proceeding issued on the Goth
day of January, 1896, requiring him as
chairman of the board Ct county COM
missioners to issue to the relator Cum
ningham warrants on the general county
fund from taxes collected under the as
sessment of 1894 to pay current expenses
for 1895. This order was made by con-
sent aud without objection from any
source whatever. The order was COM
piled with and the money paid over as
collected until the meeting of the board
on July S, 1897, at which time the re-
spondent refused and declined to issue
warrants for the balance due on the or
der of the court in said mandamus pro-
ceedings, answering AS reason for so de-
dining that An act of the last legislature
known as the Bateman law required him
to divert this money and use the same
for other county purposes. The court
held that the Bateman law did not author
ize the respondent as chairman of the
board of county commissioners to use or
divert the funds from any purpose for
which this money has been by law ap-
propriated before the passage of the act
referred to above.
The respondent further contended that
the claim of the relator was the same as
other claims against the county by the
creditors. The court held that the man
demus proceedings of January 80, 1896.
having been made by the court by con-
sent of all parties and without any objec-
| tion from any source, was a judgment
| and in the nature of a contract, and that
the legislature had no authority to change
in any way, or violate the obligations of
such contract, and further that the act of
the legislature in question did not at
tempt to do so.
The court further held that the act of
the Legislature did not require anyone
holding claims against the county to
surrender such claims and take bonds in
lieu thereof, but that it only gave people
l
who held claims against the county an
option to prove up these claims and
take interest bearing bonds in lieu there
of, If they so desire.
The court held that in this case there
was nothing to show any intent or pur-
pose on the part of the respondent, Dud-
row, to violate or disregard the order of
the court, but that he had simply acted
under misapprehension of the law. He
| (Dudrow) is therefore given so days in
which to comply with the orders of the
court in the original mandemus proceed
ings.
! The purport of the decision as rendered
by Judge Laughln is to the effect that
the Batemsn law applies to all future
management of county affairs from the
date of its passage. 1t does not attempt
to repeal any existing laws. One of its
principal objects in the opinion of the
court as shown by the decision, is to
prohibit all municipalities, school dis
tricts, ETC., from coontracting debts in
the future, for which there is no provis
ion for payment.