The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1898-01-22
THE ENDION COMPANY INJUNC,
TON.
Judge Helncs on the Observation-Disclosures
For and Against.

The Endion company Injunction case
came up in the Circuit court on Thurs
day evening, Judge Helmes on the
bench, and after three hours session
was adjourned to O'Clock this, Friday,
morning. This( Friday mornings Lead
er gives the following summary of last
nights proceedings
Attorney A. l.. Sanford. acting for
City Attorney McHueh, who was suffer
ing froul bad cold, opened the pro-
ceedlngs by presenting an affidavit in
answer to the order demanding that
cause be shown why the Endion IN
junction should not be made perma-
nent.
/ The affidavit gave a detailed history
of the refunding scheme and of the
issues of bonds made by the city, the
condition Of the city's Indebtedness be-
ing given. 1t stated that of the out
standing Improvement bonds due and
against property on which the assess
ments have not been paid. but $1,000
worth are strictly special and not lien
against the city. Further it was stated
that the tax suits against the county at
present tie up about 81 100000 of assess-
ments, and that on account of the fail
ure to collect taxes on such involved
property, money has been diverted
from sinking funds to the amount Of
over 100000 The refunding ordinance
and contract, and an outline history of
The proceedings in that connection were
recited. The claim was made that the
council had acted legitimately in tie
matter, showing no favoriteism in let
| ting the contract to J. II. Culver. In
conclusion Mr.. Sanborn read and ar
gued that it is the city's duty to pay
outstanding bonds, and asked for dis
solution of the injunction on the ground
that it prevents the city from fulfilling
it's duty.
In the course of the discourse upon
the contract Mr.. Brennan asked Mr..
Sanborn concerning the provision for
payment to be made to the agent TIM
der the contract. The reply was that
1t was provided for by the levy, but
that no special levy for this was made
when questioned more closely Mr.. San
born said that it was the general levy
of '97. Mr.. Brennan then mentioned
that the levy was made in November,
whereas the contract was not made un.
Ill the next month.
Plaintiffs attorney wished to be al
lowed by the court to also file an aft.
davlt answering some statements made
in defendants affidavit, and the Judge
ruled that they might do so later on in
the case, as they found time to prepare
it.
The argument on the order was then
taken up, Attorney Green speaking for
plaintiff. He said that he would state
the reason for the injunction being
issued, and read from the order giving
| explanations. Taking up the legality of
the reiunding scheme, he maintained
that the Graham ordinance is invalid.
The question was raised as to what rules
the council was under at the time, and
| Mr. Green's Interpretation made out
that those in force demanded a second
reading of the Graham ordinance 1t
WIS held by him that in a substitution.
as was made IN this case, some part at
least of the original measure must re-
main. but that this ordinance was COM
plete in itselfand substitute entire.
He also contended that twelve votes
were not sufficient to pass the ordinance
and argued that the city had no auth
| ority to employ Mr.. Culver to pay i'm
| provement bonds.
The Judge, after questioning Mr.. Sam
| born, said that so far as the question of
law was concerned, Mr.. Green's stand
was right, the question then being as
to facts in the case.
After some further argument the case
WAS adjourned TO TODAY, Friday.
AS we go to press the case is still pro-
ceeding.