The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-06-28
CONTEMPT CASE DISMISSED.
NO RESTRAINING ORDER HAD BEEN
GRANTED AGAINST CITY.

A Misrepresentation as to the Word
ing of the First Order Issued by
Judge FaIIigant in the Case of
Sack Against the City Council Led
10 Subsequent PrOceedings-MayOF
and Aldermen in No Danger From
the Wrath of the Court-Mr. La
Roche States His Position.
The mayor and aldermen and the several
city officials who were mentioned in the
contempt proceedings on account of the
foreible removal of the fence around the
Sack property in the southeastern section,
will not have to appear before Judge Fall
giant to show cause why they should not
be ruled for contempt. The proceedings
were dismissed BY Judge Fahigant yester-
day on motion of Mr. w. p. LaRoche. at
torney for the Sack heirs, who discovered
that he had acted under a misapprehen-
sion, and the contempt order was set aside.
MIR. LaRoche's misrepresentation was due
10 the fact that he supposed an order, di-
rected 10 the mayor and aldermen, re-
straining them from interfering with Mr..
Sacks property until the further order of
the court, had been issued by Judge Fail
hgant on June %. The petition presented
by Mr.. LaRoche asked for such an order.
and he supposed it had been granted. The
officers Of the court were also under this
impression, as the return of the sheriff,
endorsed on the back of the official copy, is
TO the effect that service had been perfect
ed OF petition, process and restraining or
der. Mr. LaRoche based his second peH-
ton TO The court on this supposition and
Judge Failigant, taking the statement of
Frrr,t
signed the order presented by Mr.. La
Roche, requiring the mayor and aldermen
and several Of the city officials TO show
cause before him on Saturday why they
should not be ruled for contempt for dis
obedience of the former order.
Seeing that considerable commotion had
been created by this second order, and
that there was difference of opinion be-
tween the attorneys in the case, Judge
Faliigant looked up the papers yesterday
morning. He saw at once that the first
order, upon which the subsequent proceed
ings had been based was not a restrain
ing order, but simply an order to appear
and show cause. He called Mr.. LaRoche's
attention to the matter, and the latter was
surprised to find that such was the case,
as he had all along labored under the inn
preston that he had obtained a restrain
ing order, this having been the intention
and object of his petition. He at once
dismissed his petition.
The following endorsement was entered
by Judge Falligant upon the back of the
order granted The previous day: within
rule to show cause in contempt proceed
ings having been issued upon an incorrect
statement as to existence of previous re-
straining order made in sworn petition. ii
is ordered that said rule be set aside and
discharged as imprudently granted"
The statement of his position in the
"A faVs 1arrA
to that gentleman:
AT the time the petition praying for
an immediate restraining order and in
Junction was presented to Judge FALL
CANT, the court sanctoned 1t aud passed
an order requiring the defendants to show
cause, July Il, why the restraining order
should not be granted. The conclusion
the court came to this morning was that
the sanctioung of the petition without
formal order in terms restraining the
Mayor and aldermen from breaking down
the fence, though each petitioner, SO sane
toned and order of court to show cause
had been regularly served upon the city,
would not sustain contempt proceedings.
The city took its action in demOlishing
the fences on the idea that the order of
court had been given June p and the
fence built June % whereas the fence was
built before signing of the order, which
was done by the court on June %.
MY sole idea in pursuing contempt
proceedings" said Mr. LaRoche, was to
force the city TO put back the fence which
l thought and still think, was wrong
fully removed by it, and TO wish existed
on my part to iujure or wound the per-
sonal feelings of any of the gentlemen
engaged in the affair. Simply put, from
my standpoint. my clients rights in the
premises required this action, and under
the same circumstances with the court
backing me up I would do 1t again"
July II is the date which has been gen
orally mentioned by all the parties in
terested in discussing the matter as the
date on which the mayor aud aldermen
were required to show cause why they
should not be restrained from interfering
with the encroachments OF the Sack pro-
perty. An examination of the original
order, however, disclcses the fact that the
date is July l and not July II, so the
original matter which was the forerun-
ner of the discussion is likely to he taken
up in the superior court Saturday.
BEAULIEU's FIRE BUGS.