Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-12-19
And Show Cause Why They Should
Not be Required to Give
Bonds of $50, 900.
COURT REFUSED TO VAGATE WRIT
And Made Rule Returnable Next
Saturday, When the Street
and Sewers Directors
Must Make Final
Answer.

Superior Court Tuesday, after hear
ing argument on a dilatory motion,
decided unanimously that an alterna-
tive writ of inandamus issue, return
able Dext Saturday, requiring Street
and Sewer Directors Ayres S. Webster,
James d. Garter and PATRICK Fahey to
show case why they should not be re.
quired to furnish official bonds of
$50, COO each. The application for the
writ was made by the executive com
nittee of the Citizens Association, rem
resented by j. Harvey Whiteman, and
the Street and Sewer Directors were
represented by William S, Hilles. The
object of the proceedings is to require
the furnishing of bonds in place Of
those which are missing.
Mr.. Hilles moved Tuesday for
the vacation of the rule to show cause,
arguing that ;t was not the business of
private citizens to bring the subject
to the attention of the court, but rather
the business of the Mayor and Council.
Mr.. Hilles held that the relators have
no such interest in the proceedings as
would entitle them to the issuance of
the writ. He found an apparent con-
f1iot In decisions in this State as to
whether private relator may act for
the public in securing the performance
by public officer of public duty. In
Hawkins vs.. DougfertJ it was held
that taxable had right BY manda-
mus to enforce the public duty of tax
collector to collect tax. In Biggs vs.
Buckingham, the Chancellor held that
citizen and taxable of New Castle
county had no right 70 maintain hill
Ia equity fer relief which was common
alike to himself aud TO all other uiti-
zens and taxables of said county.
This bond is TO be giveo to the Mayor
and Council. No person whatsoever
other than the municipal corporation
can make any use whatever of tine
bond. The money collected thereon,
or the security afforded thereby, is due
only to the municipality as such It.
and not the citizens of the muni-
ciIality, has LEGAL and direct interest
in tho filing OF IN, bond.
1t il diRiouls 10 see how the relators
in this case even as laxahles and citi-
zens OF the city or Wilmington. have
any interest, however remote in the
fling OF this bond. Ii is in no sense a
public reourd They have no right to
enter it or proceed upon it,
The relation between the Street and
Sewer Directors and the city is the
relation OF principal and agent, and the
bond is simply one to be given by the
ngent to his principal. Any determine.
ton in this suit to which the Mayor
and Council is not party could not in
aoy way ;.tfect the rights of the muni-
oipality. The duty in one which is not
| due to the public, but IS due to the
municipality. 1t is one in which the
public as such has no interest.
1t is submitted that the writ should
not issue for the ground OF laches ON
behalf OF the relators.
Mr.. Whiteman argued that the writ
can issue UPON the relation of citizen
and taxpayer, because of the interest
he has in the execution Of the public
laws and because he would bs SUBJECT
to loss ii the mem pers OF the Street and
Sewer Department should fail to per-
form their duties with fidelity, IN case
said members have given. no, security.
After hearing the argumsut the
judges retired to their parlor for few
minutes and then returned with their
decision against the vacation of the writ.
The answer of the Street and Sewer
Directors, which must be filed by Sat
urday, will bring the merits of the case
before the court.