The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-11-02
10Th Sides Close Their Argument 10
the Injunction Suit.
AIKEN UNDER AMUSEMENT BY JUDGE
| he Views Of the Attorneys as Express
ed in Their rauments--Decison
viii Be Rendered Next Week.


ed in Their Arauments-Deoson
viii Be Rendered Next Week
Tho Fifty -ffth district court was tardy
opening yesterday morning and 1t was
II until after 10 o'clock when Mr.. John
Stewart of the attorneys for the plant.
began the conclusion of his opening ar
amcnt in the injunction proceedings Of
/ayor Woolford VS.. DR.. W. NJ. Brandy,
hich he had been unable to complete on
thursday for plaintiff, In substance MIR.
tewart took the position that an injunc-
pn was the only remedy that would lie:
lat while the courts have held that an Ia
lnction would not lie to restrain a de facto
pblic officer In the discharge of the duties
one within the scope Of his authority,
tat court of equity would interfere to
Fktrain officers when they are assuming
themselves powers which the law does
ot give. That such acts of such officers,
eyond the scope of their authority would
ultra wires and void; that II was not
se where an attempt was being made to
#ktran an officer in the exercise of n dis
dictionary act, but the position Of the
3intin was that the defendant had no
N hority to act at all.
That defendant sets forth the fact that
was Il duly qualified and acting health
#sDector of the city, and claims the au-
lrrty TO act as health officer under the
narter provision which. after naming spe-
ai duties of the health Inspector, con
pms a general clause to do and perform
lch other duties as may be legally pre-.
ftbed by the city council and that the
Nlnctl had, by motion, delegated TO him
b power to perform the duties of health
hicer; that the performing of such duties
~ an incident to the duties of his office,
pa that quo warranto would not lie,
because 1t is laid down by all the authori-
ffs on quo warranto that the courts would
ot permit It's use for the purpose of pre-
enting a public officer from exercising
utles which he claimed to be incident to
But he claimed that under decisions of our
tate in such case an Injunction was
he proper remedy. That the defendant
onld lay no claim to be a de facto officer,
1r he did not claim to hold the office
ut only the right as a health Inspector to
Wform the duties OF health officer. The
NINTH that the duties of health officer
md health inspector as defined by the char
n were inconsistent, ard that under the
onstitutioa of the State he could not claim
b hold both Offices The duties of health
ned and prescribed by the charter of the
Etg of Houston, and the city council had
o authority to confer upon one officer the
0tvers conferred by law upon another.
Be claimed the defendant could not claim
lat the council under the provision of the
Barter which stated that he could be re
uired to do and perform such other duties
may be lawfully prescribed by the city
onncil, had the authority to confer upon
I'm the power 10 perform the duties Of
eath officer. The general provision had
ian preceded in the charter by specially
esignTr--l-autie which We're only those
inspection or rr~-a.Sez for the purpose Of
he construction OF this langu1rc-la rule
hat the general terms relate to things -
he same sort As the preceding things
pecially mentioned. and that those men
fould give the council the right to confer
ppn defendant any power to perform the
nties OF health officer, which were entirely
BE said the mayor was the chief ex.
cntive officer Of the city, charged by the
barter with seeing that the laws of the
RT were properly enforced aud that IL
kould be in violation Of his duty to quietly
1t down and allow an officer to attempt
b assume duties without any legal an
hority. He claimed that as the defendant
al no authority whatsoever to legally act
s health officer. that It would be the
nine as having the Office vacant, since any
ne could with impunlty refuse to comply
WITH his demands and snap his fingers
Ehen the defendant claimed TO be the
citing health officer, That II was of vital
Interest to the city Of Houston to have
que ONCE legally UIleu DN one VINO was
lnthed with such authority that he could
ompel the compliance with duties re.
uired of the health officer.
Mr. Stewart said that Mayor Woolford
lad always seen the Importance of having
PIE office legally tlled and that he was
bot welded to any one man for the posi-
Ion But had nominated number Of
equitable physicians In, Houston Of good
Handing, but that with the majority OF
he council II was case of pixies Peak
bust, Brumby or no one. and that a
At HIVE q H. nl.l
ould not he charged to the mayor, but
h the majority of the council. He said
he mayor was not the stubborn one but
lad and was willing to name other phys-
tut that as matters now stood from legal
yandpoint the office was vacant That
he defendant had absolutely. no legal au-
hority to act, and that II the Injunction
Eas refused matters would stand in the
arpe deplorable condition, but that If it
Eas granted the city council would recog-
|ixe that II had acted without any legal
Minority and that for the interest OF the
ity the aldermen would probably shan.
lon the idea that Dr. Brumby was the
|nly physician that could fill the office Of
ealti officer and that they and the mayor
Qnld readily agree on a competent physi-
Ian to fill the position.
Upon the conclusion of Mr.. stewart S
renment Mr.. Louis R. Bryan began the
rgnment for the defense
Id the commencement Of his argument
|ir Bryan stated his understanding that
he contention of the respective parties
was as follows:
I. That the plaintiff Woolford. claimed
hat the defendant Brumby, as health
nspector, could not legally discharge the
nties Of health officer. The defendant
ontended thar under the charter and ordl'
ance Of the city of Houston the health
Inspector was a member Of the health
epnrtment Of the city Of Houston and
HAS especially required by the ordinances
10 aid and assist in every way In the en-
0reement Of the health and sanitary ordt'
ancos and rules of the city Of Houston.
nd that the charter provides shat the
eaith inspector should perform such du-
les as the council may require him to Per
|1rin and, therefore, DE- Brumby, being
physcian In good standing and qualified
Xoperform the duties of health officer, and
cing required TO perform said duties bv
ne city council Of the time he performed
ho6e duties, could not be enioined from
70 doing by the mayor,
81 In the second place II was claimed
by the plaintiff that he and his rights
-,f--or --sNa5VsER IE1zEEzzEzsa.
4lp6TSIR ESM> ST~ ~ y