The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-12-20
BAY ANNETTE IS GIVEN COURT HOUSE Supreme Court Reversesa Pre-
 vious Decision JUSTICE TYSON RIGHT Returned Minority Decision at First Hearing and Ills Position Was
 Sustained In Decision
 Yesterday.

Montgomery. December 19.-(Special)- The supreme court has given to Bay Mi nette a clear title to the county seat of Baldwin county. This is the effect of Hand vs. Gus B. Stapleton, from the chancery court of Mobile, today. The decision goes further and dissolves an injunction issued and dsmisses the cause, thereby making the right of Bay Minette to the capital of the county ab- solute and without cloud. In this case the supreme court adopted practically the dissenting opinion of MT. Justice Tyson on the question handed down July 21. 1904. At that time Justice Tyson was alone In the position he took; today his ideas are adopted by the en- tire bench save Chief Justice Mcclellan, who is at home i'll. The result Is to make the claim of Bay Minette without any sort of question.
 The legislature by an act approved February B. 1901, made it possible to vote on the question of removing the court house from Daphne to Bay Minette. It stipulated that the funds should be paid out of surplus revenue of the county, and that the then tax rate was not to be raised to take care of the bonds Daphne put up a fight. after the court house was located at Bay Minette, on the ground that the act contemplated that the funds were to be provided from taxes of 1901 without raising the rate. The other side argued that the law con templated that the fund was to be pro vided during a such length of time as would be needed to meet the payments.
 The lower court held with the Daphne side to the effect that the payments must be made only out of funds of 1901. This was affirmed in the opinion of July, 1904, with Justice Tyson dissent ing. However, the matter was again brought to the high court from another source on the same question and today decided as noted.
 In the opinion of the court today the Tyson opinion of July. 1904. was quoted from as follows "The whole context of the act shows that the legislature did not contemplate that the new court house and jail would or could be built with the county contribution limited to what the taxes of 1901 would enaLle the court or county cOUlfnlSSlOHeTS tO tou- tribute The single purpose of the leg islative restriction was that the object should be accomplished without the ne- cessity of increasing the then tax rate. And the nature of the undertaking and the words of the statute showed that the use of taxes for future years was contemplated"
 Opinions of Today.
 Opinions in the following cases were handed down by the supreme court to- day. December 19. 1905:
 Haralson, J.
 Florence l.. Troy, as executor, vs. Alexander T. London. appeal from Bir- mingham city court; affirmed. Dowdell, J.
 Western railway of Alabama vs. H. l.. Stone, appeal from Montgomery city court; affirmed.
 Simpson, J.
 James D. Hand ct al. vs. Gus B. Sta pleton ct al., appeal from Mobile chan cery court; reversed injunction dis solved and cause dismissed.
 Denson. J.
 Southern Railway company vs. Eve lyn Leard, appeal from Wilcox circuit court; reversed and remanded. Anderson. J.
 Lon Robertson, administrator, vs. F. cery court; affirmed
 Whitecap Cases.
 Several cases of whitecaping, or charges of such, were continued in the