Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-10-29
.lNJUNCTIONS IN
CASE OF ROAD
BONDS ARGUED
HEARING OF SUITS BEGINS IN
SUPERIOR COURT
MEsERVE MOVES TO HAVE BOTH
COMPLAINTS DISMISSED
Judge Works Replies, Pointing Out
Conditions of Transaction and
Emphasizes onerous Stpu-
Iations imposed

Hearing in the injunction suits to
restrain the board of supervisors and
w. p. Jeffries company from proceed
ing further with the sale of the good
roads bonds and from carrying out the
contract with the Jeffries company for
the furnishing and printing of the
bonds was begun before Judge Bord-
we'll In the superior court yesterday. A
large number of persons was present
when the hearing begGn, the five mem
bers of the supervisorial board, w. p
Jeffries, j. r. Martin. who negotiated
the private sale in September; Sydney
A. Butler, chairman of the advisory
committee, and numerous representa-
tlves of bond purchasing and bond fur
nishing houses being on hand to listen
to the proceedings.
Representing the plaintiffs in the two
suits filed by Eugene German and
other taxpayers and William Lindsay
were former Judge John ID. Works and
Willard c. Lyons, while arrayed against
them on behalf of the defendants were
LAWYER Allen, Van Dyke & Jutten,
Edwin A. Meserve, George A-dams and
Hartley Shaw, chief deputy district at
torney.
The hearing began with a motion by
Mr.. Meserve to have the complaints
dismissed on the ground that they did
cause Of action. The attorney read the
complaint filed by German, commit
ing on each paragraph in passing.
Germaln Complaint Read
"The manner in which the bonds
should be sold and everything in con-
nection with them,' he said, lis in the
discretion of the board of supervisors,
and the first thing the plaintiffs will be
ft1s. efaNr
and fraud which they allege."
Meserve denied that the public at
large protested against the private sale
of the bonds to the Los Angeles Trust
company and James H. Adams e. Co.,
asserting that three newspapers only
objected to the transaction. He tried
to compare the private sale with the
sale of the Owens river bonds, but was
halted by Judge Bordwell, who said the
latter had nothing to do with the mat
ter under consideration.
German, when he filed that suit"
said Meserve, twas not working for
German, the taxpayer but for Ger
main as representative of bond
houses who do not wish to put up a
certified check for $5O000."
Judge Works replied to the argu-
ment advanced by Attorney Meserve.
He went to the meat of the matter inn
mediately.
'If the discretion of the board of SUI
pervisors is fairly and honorably exer-
csed," he said, with emphasis, "there
is no question of its right to act. But
If there is a doubt of this the court
should take cognizance of this fact.
1.-THE duty of the board was first to
procure the highest bid for the sale of
the bonds and to secure the lowest bid
for the furnishing of the bonds. 1t is
distinctly alleged that the manner I'M
which these bonds were to be sold as
first agreed on was not in the interests
of the county. If they undertook to
make this sale not in the interests of
the county and knew this fact they
acted fraudulently.
1.-THE price to be paid for the furnish
ing of the bonds was left to others
when if bids had been called for the
work could have been done for $1,000
less than the board agreed to pay.
1--WE will offer an affidavit to show
that an officer of the Los Angeles Trust
company stated they would take all
the bonds at once if they secured the
sale. This was possible owing to the
terms on which the sale was made, and
it would have meant loss to the coun-
ty of Az per cent from the date on
which the trust company took the
bonds. That in itself was a fraud"
Judge Works said that in order to
induce one of the other members of
the board to join them the "solid
three" Patterson, Wilson and Eldridge,
figured on another bid much more ia
vorable to the county than the one ac-
copied in the rescinded sale.
Now, if the board made the sale at
a price lower than they knew they
could get and knew that better bid
had even been offered that fact Is not
only constructive fraud, but actual
fraud
"It is said there is no connection be-
tween the first transaction. when the
bonds were disposed of by private sale,
and the last transaction which we seek
to enjoin, concluded Judge Works.
''That deny. The whole thing was the
result of a conspiracy"
Attorney Oscar Lawler took up the
entire afternoon session in an argu-
ment in which he contended that the
court should deny the application for
an injunction so far as the JeffrieS
company was concerned.