The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1903-01-10
REHEARlNG IS REFUSED.
City Is Again Set Back in the Famous
Civil Service Cases.
WILL APPLY FOR A WRIT OF FRROR
Every Point viii &c Contested 5efafs
Payment Is Msds-auothsr TesR
Case VIII 20 Through Courts.

While the city Is in receipt Of sons neat
sums Of cash that have given the treasury
the hsathiest roior Il has wern Ia many
months. the Iega department Is busy n IL
efforts to prevent raids being made un the
pxchequer that wills ieave Il sadly dcpletes.
The So roo titat WIS received frpu the
street railway company aud the large tax
collections OF the past mnnth hare given
the city start 20 the directiou IN wbich
the present administration has beeu indus
triously tolling siucr tts inauguration into
Office Ihc russ obl<atous * the city. enc
ashrs that canle as 4 heritage 70 too present
officials. are the ohigstiHus that are cans.
Ing the greates; amount ~ work and WORRY
NJ the present time
what win be the eutcpmo Of the rivu
service eases pending IN tine courts. rncse
cases Instituted by rHe memsers ~ the W
lice forrc who were discharged without
trial before the rivi service tho MOST as
tute acrpruers Do mot attempt 20 predict
The total SIM aroved s Approximately
S90crA 9ud ig cUe % the OIL d"afs " deht
q can 10 ralied which. " poseibie, the
CRY seebs 20 avoid paying
REHEAFTNG REFU >tp
on December -, 1872. -be to1r- n ap-
peais rererscd the Test yii ssrvirc ca5a
poO TN rbs courts sndin- tor tho plalnrT
r Vs. rawthon and roudert1- Judgment
81 favor If tls discharged sttT policeman
Cttv Attorney stcrr an once dieI q mefior
far o rehenrfrE. bu- tNo COURT -sfuspd ~
graft t. making RS rul5nS Thursaay after
Morn.
Tie city v apply for @ wr.- ~ error 90
the supreme count. and n This application
"a oyerruled the famous vase VIII hr ended
and the city wiz he called upHn t2 pay
Ir Cawthon would receive aAnut S-iP'
. the writ " error 's granted cine city viii
~ once clrrv tine ease to else supreme
.ourr-
THE TEST CASE
when tAe ousted policpuen decided Go
r-{rx SUR against the city the artiuu IN
rhr name ~ r. W. Cavrhon was nude the
test case.
rnis case was FIRST tried before Judge
W. Fl. Wilson x the Fifty afrh district
court ON June ~. IaOi who rendered
dscision for the defendant The plaintiff
supd FOR two years salary as O policeman.
Claiming 10 have been apoointed for two
ypars undpr the city charter. a0d that it
vas Hlegnl To discharge ham from said
service without q charge being preferred
tainss him and a triai BEFORE the civil
service board. which "a composed " MEM
tCs from the city council, and that the
sisf 81 poiiee discharged him from service
h4h
The decision 81 the higher court means
tnsf he discharged police officers can
collect tnil rag for the two years.
PENDING CASES
Tbe remaining cases are based upoa sim
la allegations ant City Attorney stone
says he VIII proceed 20 uisl on one of them
ehieh will be made test case. a. was
.he CAwJhon case, and he viii conduct the
itys defense FROM the lower court on
iRraugh the higher courts should appeals
be necessary.
Ihe Cawthon case was tried IN the locsl
courts during the time Mr.. Joe NJ sam
was the city attorney and was Appealed
under Mr. Stones administration Of the
1ffee.
Ihe plaintiffs IN rne cases 81 other Off
cers against the city pending ID rhe tive
district courts - this county arp OK Police
weu j. ". Frazier ] H. 1tahpneT Charles
Fioeek, sidney " pepeubreck s. p Stone
Frank : Smith. George o. Clark, Thomas
= Lubbock, ". s Johnson l. VI. Baker
John Daley John :. Frame Henry Ross
AMI A. Esres