The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-01-28
THE BtjNGoMBE BOND CASE.
Judge Avery Explains The Difference
Between Buncombe and IStanly Suits.

Judge Avery Explains The Difference
Between Buncombe and IStanly Suits.
Judge Avery returned yesterday from
Waynesfille, where he went to argue the
Bnncoinbe bond case before Judge Nor
wood. Judge Avery, Messrs. Moore and
Moore and Marcus Brown appeared 70
the board of commissioners and e. ID.
Carter, ESD, for the Treasurer, who ha
been enjoined from paying the bonds.
a special published yesterday from
Waynesyile gave the information that
Judge, Norwood had decided that the
bonds were not legally issued. Asked
az to the points of difference between
the Stanly and Buncombe cases, Judge
Avery said:
4 .sIhes difference between the Buncombe
and .Stanly county bond case is, first,
that there was nothing in the charter Of
the Asheyille and Spartanburg Railroad
which authorized counties to subscribe
to capital stock of the company. whereas
there was provision in the charter of the
1adkin Valley Railroad Company, which
purported to give such authority to that
company, but the amendment contain
ing this authority was not paSSed j
accordance with the requirements of thu
Constitution; second, in the Stanly c0un-
ty case, section / 1896 to 1000 of The
Code were also relied upon as authoriz
ing the subscription, which was made
after the enactment of The Code in 1883
The people voted upon the question OF
subscription in Buncombe in the year
1875, and the act of 1868. which was IL
the same words as contained in sections
1896 TO 1000 of The Code, where it wac
brought forward, was relied upon as au.
thoriZing the vote and subscription. The
act of 1868 was passed in pursuance OF
article 2, section 2, of the Constitution as
was The Code in 1883. The Legislature
after the subscription was made in 1875
in 1877 passed an act ratifying the sub
scription which was made by G.. b. Way
and NJ. E. Carter as agents for the
county commissioners. But the act Of
1877 was not read ON three several days
and passed by an aye and no vote, and
If it had been so passed. COUNSEL for the
commissioners contended and the judge
held that the Legislature had no power
to impart validity TO a debt void fol
want of proper legislative authority "
the board Of commissioners to order thf
election. make the subscription or issue
the bonds. The bonds issued in 1867
and rs matured in 1895, interest hav
ing been paid upon them and the cou
pons taken up meanwhile. An act pass
ed in 1893 purported to clothe the Boar
of Commissioners Of Buncombe county
with power to refund the old county
debt by issuing new bonds. and in 1885,
the remaining principal of the old debt
amounting to $4,000, was settled by is
srIing that amount in new 5 per cent
bonds maturing in the year 1915. The
counsel for the commissioners contendef
and the Judge held that the old bond,
being invalid and void, the Legislature
could not by statute and without a vor'
of the people authorize the board of com
missioners to issue new bonds in lieu o
the old debt that would prove bindin:
obligation upon the people of the county
Judge Avery, Moore and Moore, an'
Marcus Brown appeared for the board 0
commissioners and e. ID. Carter, ESQ.
for VIM. r. Payne, treasurer, who wa
enjoined from paying the interest on til
bonds, and appealed to the Suprem
court.