The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-04-20
Again November and
December Salaries.
WANTS FREEDOM IN OFFICE
ASKS JUDGE sEAWELL TO MoD4-
Fly AN ORDER.
The Case Will Come Up Next Friday,
at Which Time the Application
Will Be Heard in Open
Court.

Judge Seawell yesterday continued the
case of Oscar Moses against the Board OF
Education ct al until next Friday On
that day John H. Dickinson, attorney for
defendant, Auditor Asa r. Wells, Will
move the court to modify an order here
tofore made so that Auditor Wells shall
be permitted to audit the demands of the
teachers for the months of November and
December, deducting from each Of them
any moneys due the city from any holder
of any demand by reason of any moneys
illegally paid such holder and requesting
that warrants for the remainder be per-
mitted to be audited and delivered to the
proper parties
The motion will be made on the ground
that the order was tmprOVldently maze
and that the duties Of the Auditor are in
terfered with in an unWarranted manner.
1t is necessary. it is commended, that the
order be modified and set aside in order
that confusion and loss shall not result
regarding moneys of the city and county.
To back up this motion for modification
of the order an affidavit made by Auditor
filed EDS with 1' the i clerk This afidavit ex-
plains the entire situation as viewed by
Wells, but there are other views, ana
some difficulty is expected when the mo-
ton comes up for hearing. This affidavit
reads:
1 am the Auditor of the city and county Of
San Francisco and have been during al me
times hereinafter mentioned. l am also me
defendant in the action now pending in the
Superior Court and heretofore an order in said
action containing the following language was
made and served upon me, and said order is
still in full fore and effect:
1t is hereby ordered until the further order
of this court the said Auditor be and he is here
by restrained and enjOined from assuring any
warrants demand of defendant teachers for
the months of November and December. 1898,
nothing herein to be construed injunc-
ton against the said Auditor using the said
demands as a means of offset for any demands
which may have been illegally paid said teach
ers heretofore"
BY the terms of said order I am restrained
from properly performing the duties Of my Of
flee in the making up Of my accounts. and those
with the other officials of the city and county
of San Francisco, and know of no way by
which I can use the demands mentioned in the
order as an offset for any purpose, unless
selves
In the month of February last. believing that
the matters involved in the litigation in this
action would be determined at once, did all
that I could to release the demands for the
month of January, then awaiting audit, so
that they were paid, and the demands for Feb
| ruary and March have also been paid and no
further move OF any kind that l am aware OF
has been made in the action. and so far as
advised there is no reason why the matters
involved in the action should not be disposed
of. certainly so far as this affant and his
office is concerned
Doubtless some confusion has been
brought about by the order of the court,
but it is obvious that the order was neceS-
sary, as has been explained before. Just
how much a modification of the original
order would assist toward reaching final
decision in the case is not clear That
modification would allow Auditor Wells
to drag himself from the tangle there can
be no question, but it looks that the
buck would pass up to the Treasurer in
event of modification. and the record
would be swollen in the legal scramble
following TO prevent payment of even the
deducted warrants. The merchants OBJ
ject to the money being paid at all, even
after moneys Illegally paid out" have been
deducted, so it is doubtful that Wells eff
fort to thus extricate himself will avail
him much, it being the general opinion
that he must wait the trend Of events and
final adjudication of the prepleXing con-
ditinr1