Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1905-10-21
COURT RENDERS
IMlJRTANT OPINIONS
JUDGE abbott Refuses TO In.
teriyre in TreaSurer's Office
Squabble.
OPINION ,G,INSr COMMISSIONERS

"a ANMMNN MN|I W WNM'H kHHHfNHf'
grant the petition OF counsel for y. a.
iJnbbell. asking Tor an injunction
nualnst Iusto IA. Armlio, 10 restrain
hlm from taking possession Of the Of
zee of tho county treasurer In the
court house. and asking that said
A Uubbou be- allowed 90 poaceahly
remove certain records from the once
a. po s0nsi property ny the order
auat nlpd. Armiio ls left ffec 90 enter
fho vault In the trcaaurors Office, and
gives him full possession OF the OF
zee
To-day Judge Abbott handed down
a. opinion In the case Of W. y. thli-
ders. ct al, Va. the bOafd OF county
commissioners OF bernalilio county'
an which the plaintiffs asked that an
Injunction be- granted restraining
che commissioners from borruWlnk
money 10 carry on the affairs OF the
county and Nhlch Injunction was
Franted. Tho court also handed down
an opinion 10 tho case Of T. a. hub'
coll Va. the board of county commits
aloncra. In which Hubboll asked Tor
an Injunction against the cOmmis-
slouors 10 restrain them troia entorc'
4ne their order placing Iust9 r.. Ar
milo IN pnahNHHluN ga tlN -
Office In the court house, but which pc
dillon was denied by Judge Abbott
yesterday.
The written opinions In the two
cases arc az follows:
Opinion In Taxpayers Suit,
Territory OF New Mexlco, IN the Dis
trict court. BornallllO county.
VA n ghllnorF IL Az
vs.. NO, oihto'
Board OF County Commissioners OF
Bornaiillo County, et ais.
OPINION.
In this cause. the PLAINTIFF, az tax
payers. call In question the validity OF
the act OF the county commission
ers In borrowing money Tor the nee
essary expenses of the present (sep.
tembcr) term Of tho district court OF
said county.
The defendants Justify on the ground
OF necessity. alleging that otherwise
d would not have been possible for
che reasons -tated In their answer TO
hold said term OF court, and further
claiming that the plaintiffs as tax pay
ors. cannot maintain this action,
II Is not claimed that the power to
borrow money o. conferred on county
commissioners In this t. riiory IN ex'
press "a, ms but tha' Il exists by neces.
sary inference from the statutes dcfn'
tng their powers and duties. These pow
crs are mainly enumerated and de
scribod IN Section 66i Of the Com
piled Laws OF 1897, In no legs than if
teen clauses II can hardly BE-
that in so wide n range OF subjects the
power 20 borrow money failed of men
fion because of lnadverteuce or mis-
take. Il Is much more probable that
~ was considered and purposely omit
ted 80 recently as last winter II was
apparently thought necessary that the
county commissioners Of this county
should have authority from the legisla
tive assembly 10 borrow money foI
ahe construction OF dyke 10 pro
fcct the city OF Albuquerque from the
threatened lnundation by the Rio
Grando. Certainly, that was case
Of greater necessity than that OF hold
ing a term Of court at a particular
time.
Power sO important and liable q
abuse as that OF public officials "a
borrow money should not be estab
dished ythe courts on anything less
than direct constitutional or statutory
provisions or absolutely necessary de-
ductlnns from them. Even u by that
rule OF construction Il could be held
that county commissioners in New
Mexico could borrow money In Ger
tain emergencies such q CASE Is NOT
In my opinion presented by the an
Bwer IN this cause. II Is highly i'm
portaut that tho courts should be- held
but still more important that they
should not be held In violation Of the
laws they are designed 20 administer
m Il n not easy for any citizen III
adopt that view when officials IN whose
competence and honesty ho has faith
are IN power, and would DO the hor
sowing. he should consider whether
he would be content so have the
same power exercised az some future
time boy officials whom he should be-
lleye 40 De incompetent or corrupt
Besides, the statute provisions In
relation 10 court funds. appear "a
have been very carefully framed 90
limit expenditures for court purposes
20 money actually IN hand from taxa.
tion. n was. too the plain intent of
the Rateman act SO called. 90 pre-
vent further expenditures In excess OF
current taxation by county and other
Officers.
Tho plaintiffs as tax payers. are en-
titlod to maintain the action on Use au.
th0rlty of Catron ys. board OF county
comm .shionerH. etc. N, 81, n goal
and Champion ys labrIskio. l0i u s..
p. coo
tSiE1cd) IRA b.. ABBOTT
Judgc
Opinion In Treaaurer'a Gaze.
Territory of New Mexlco In me DIS.