The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-10-31

". II. Wilson OF tine ril's '" 49,
aR v" was too busily engaged yes
we mn the woolford- Brumby IN
csse to restrain DR.. Brumby from
" hcaltb officer, but permitted the
ale amended pleadings and reset
y, M hearing at p. m. today
~
I, woolford, through his counsel
Y stewart. stewart x Lockett' sub
M following amended petition:
IA vour orator further represents
zion % of the charter of the city
.,,on and the city council shall have
Y, .borre of the sanitation Of the city
4 ebarter provisi&n gives the mayor
-, right and power in the subject
n this suit; that there is no legally
tired city health officer of the city
a.astou, nor anyone legally authorized
,.torm the duties OF said Office win
4 NE mayor can act, to have charge
- Snitation of the city.
mai the mayor of the city of Hons
,sder the charter is authorized to be
1T Ia seeing the laws of the city prop
enforced; that one of his said duties
|sho 90 500 that the property of the
4 IN proper custody of Its officers
ouafed by law to act as such, but
he defendant assumes to take charge
he books and property pertaining. 70
health officer without any legal right
tuthority and contrary to law, ana that
-. .rnl .1FNN 81
,lr the said officer in thus illegally
|ing possession of such property.
That the motion of Alderman Thomp-
above set forth under which defendant
umeS to act provides that ne snail re.
Il the sum OF $3.50 per month, anu
ntln prays that defendant be restrained
the collecting Of said sum OF money
as II is an unauthorized appropriation
public funds, which your orator as mayor
citizen porperty owner, voter and
Xplyef of the city of Houston mas the
Ii 10 enjoiu; that the allowing by sald
lion of said compensation to the SAID
NJ Brumby is unauthorized by law ant
ssl for the following reasons:
bat said sum of money Is TO be palt
said defendant Tor services In per
ming the duties Of health officer whei
ier the law the detndlnt is not TIM
llh officer, nor can he perform the duticl
said compensation is Illegal, and 10
feb the city of Houston can receive n
ifats because the defendant can not lie
rs perform the duties of health officer
the fixing of SAID compensation wa
De BY q simple motion, which was no
aIy passed. when section ~ of the cha
Of the city of Houston clearly state
i the fixing of the compensation OF an
!eer servant or agent of the city mus
nv nr.ltp bns Loo IN
answer that he is Il duly qualified healt
pector of the city OF Houston, and tn
Xapensation of a health INSPECTOR is 81
month, and that the result of said lnt
would be TO raise his salary or fee
office, when section ~ of the charter {
city of Houston directly prohibits til
sing or lowering of the fees and salart
ring the time for which such Officer
elected and that TO allow defendant
,elye said sum of $50 per month woul
contrary 10 law aud niisappropriatio
the MONEYS of tho city OF Houston.
IS That the said w NJ Rrumby. viii
assumes 10 perform TIC dutlrs OF healt
iGr, does not claim even TO be the 1
rf health officer of the caid city
Oust0n, }}tlt alleges that he is n duly dual
u health Inspector of the city of Hou
~. that he can NOT hold under the const
section 81 ~ +i,a cbnrtor az thn cit
Houston provides that the health i
rector Shall be under the control of q
ath physician and the holding and nc
rmlng the duties of the two offices wou
Inconsistent. and prohibited by law.
10. That defendant does NOT assume
the health offlcer of the CITY of Houst,
the title "a tho office of health ,
Ger is in no manner inyolved.
20 That the duties of The city health
Ger are prescribed by the charter and ,
lances of tho city Of Houston. and +
~ council could nor and can not nv t
loye illegal motion. or otherwise. de
ate the authority TO defendant TO lea
efform the duties of health officer. 1
ich city council has no power under {
sw TO confer on one officer the MOVE
uties and rights anDcrtainifle 70 anotl
flee under the law. but the law reuuil
bat the acts pertaining To n nublIc on
hOuld be performed by the officers mr.
hom the duty has been imposed by la
I'D not by an intruder without any LEI
uthorlty to act. as would he the case
efendant would be allowed Illegally to D
Gm the duties of said office of hea
flcer of the CITY of Houston.
81 That there are Ave other health
pectors of tho CITY Of Houston. MS d.
quilted under the law. TO act MS hea
1leer Of the CITY of Houston az is
defendant.
2 That while nlaintiff docs not nd,
hat tho defendant is nov. health inspec
I the olty of Uouston. as The nlaintin
he right ana hoa removed defendant
one Of tho health insnertors of the city
Houston which no had tho noNvpr 10
or the reasons that n heaith inspector
20 fixed form Of offlce and can theref
be removed M win Of the nnrojntinr nov
which Is tho movor of the city OF II,
on. and for no further roason that
Defendant claims 10 no nc heolth on
I'M aiSSNunh rheu ny hhJoIl.y W.