The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-11-08

Court Yesterday dissolved the in
junction secured by Mayor Moir to re-
strain City Controller Howell from
countersigning the warrants for the
uch-disputed pay of eN-Patrolmen
Saul and Dyer for the time select
council was withholding Its concur
renee in the action of the mayor In
removing them.
In substance the decision OF the
court was that the mayor had no
starding.
August II, 1899. the mayor removed
Saul and Dyer "for cause" but 1t was
not until the first Thursday Of Novem.
ber following that select council could
be prevailed upon to concur in the ac-
tion In the interim the dismissed
patrolmen offered themselves con-
..tantly for duty, but were not allowed
to act.
In October. 1899, Saul presented
claim for $1S2 and in case stated
judgment was awarded him for the
full! emount. Dyer, in a letter to the
may or, so he alleges, made formal de-
nand for $751; but this the mayor de-
nies
February, "a. 1900, Mayor Noir. act
ing independent of councils ana
against the Judgment of the city solici-
tor, took an appeal to the superior
court to prove his contention that
when patrolman is dismissed his SAL
ory ceases, no matter how long after
wa"ds it may be before the concur
renee of select council is forthcoming.
Last September select council passed
resolution directing the city clerk to
draw an order for S1S2 and interest
in favor of Dyer and Saul, and COM
mon council concurred in 1t. AS was
expected, the mayor vetoed the meas
urc. but, as was also expected, the
councils passed it with practical un-
animity over the mayors veto.
Thereupon the mayor sought and
secured a preliminary injunction de-
Glazing the resolution void and re-
straining the controller from taking
any action under its provisions.
Yesterday, when the rule to make
The injunction permanent came to be
beard. the court decided in favor of
the contention of the eX-patrolmen'S
attorneys that the council had every
right to make a compromise on these
claims, just as they would on any
other claim, and that the matter of
the legality of the claims did not con-
troll. AS long as they had a moral
right to this money there was no ques-
lion, the court held, but that the coun-
ellis could adopt compromise measures.
The mayors power Of interference
was exhausted when he exercised his
right of veto.
Welles & Torrey and Willard, War
rem & Knapp represented Saul and
Dyer. The mayors attorney was John
u. McAskie.
Immediately after the dissolution Of
the injunction the eX-patrolmen made
an effort to secure from the controller
the full amount of their claims. Con-
troller Howell, however, refused to
pay them, inasmuch as the money APP
propriated for their salary has already
been paid to Patrolmen Davies and
Hockenberry, who We're appointed to
fill the vacancies caused by the two
removals.
When the controller paid Patrolmen
Davies and Hockenberry he required
them to furnish, indemnifying bonds
for the full amount paid them, so
that in case court should decide that
Dyer and Saul We're entitled to their
salary, and that councils should decide
to allow them it, he would be released
from any personal responsibilitr.
He has already notified Ho' enberry
and Davies that they must refund the
two months salary paid them, and If
they fail to pay it back he will hold
their bondsmen, John Fl. Fellows and
Wade NJ. Finn. for the full amount.
When the money is paid back into the
city treasury he will countersign war;
rants for the payment of Dyer and
Saul, but not before.