The Robesonian. [volume] (Lumberton, N.C.) 1870-current, 1908-04-30

before a Judge of the Superior
Court at cham bers, or in term,
on & day to be specified, not less
than ten days after a service of
the summons and complaint
upon the defendant, at which
time the Court, except for cause
shown. shall proceed to hear and
determine the matter both as to
the law and the facts, provided |
that If an issue Of fact is raised !
by the pleadings, it shall, on mo-
ton of either party, be referred |
to a jury. Revisal, Sec. 624. III
the relief asked by the plaintiffin |
this case was not the enforce
ment of a money demard. the
Judge had jurisdiction of the case
at cham bers, and it was his duty
to hear and determine the case
and Ills order transferring it TO
term was consequently erro-
neous. It is evident that the
transfer was not made for the
purpose merely of cOntinuingthe
case to be heard at mare CON
venient time, for good cause
shown. but because the Judge
was Of the opinion that be could
not take cognizance Of the case at
cham bers, except for the purpose
Of making the transfer. In this
ruling there was error. In Mar
tin v. Clark, 135 N. G. 178. we
held that the Judge had jurisdic-
tion at cham bers of an applica
ton for a mandamus to compel a
county treasurer to pay an order
of the county commissioner out
of specific fund, which was
designated in the order, it not
being a money demand within
the meaning of the Code, Sec.
G23, Revisal, Sec. S24. The rea-
son assigned for the decision is
that the treasureris a ministerial
officer. who is charged with the
duty of holding the public
J finds ard paying them out
on the warrant of the commiSs
7 ioners. THE commissioners
. having audited and allowed the
: claim aud having issued war
} rant for it's payment by the
= treasurer out of a specific fund
= it is his duty to do so, provided
5 he has such funds in his hands
: applicable to such claim" II
y that case there was a transfer o
the cause by order to term, bu
for the declared purpose Of try
r ing certain issues raised by tn
r pleadings This was, of course
= held to be proper, as it was &C
J. cording to the express terms o
= the statute. In our case, how
d ever, there is no issue of fact t
J, be tried. All the facts necessar.
b to entitle the plaintiff to the re
It lief demanded, have been admit
J, ted. 1t is true the defendant de
| MES that he has any knOwledg
d or information sufficient t
e form belief as t
g whether the particular service
it to pay which the order was is
S sued were,in fact, rendered, bu
n it is immaterial whether he ha
,e such knowledge or not. Il
it cannot be within the power O
Ie duty of tle treasurer of the cour
n ty to refuse to pay a county OF
Ie der issued by the board Of con
b missioners because he does ne
D, think it a just or lawful claim. c
is for any other reason, which ha
]. been passed upon by the boarc
i and within it's power to act.
in Martin V. Clark, 1875 N. G.. Isl
9, Indeed, the defendant admit
IS that lie has sufficient funds
N his hands with which to pay tt
sc claim and that he filed his a
J. swer for the purpose of asce
It, tanning what is his legal duty
o. the premises and to protect hiL
s. self against wrongful pay men
te He carnOt attack the order ct
c. laterally, by merely denyir
as that be has any knowledge Of Il
on transactions upon which it W
:al based, no fraud orOther Illegal
nt, being alleged. The act reqnir
he the board of audit and finance
rs, determine what the compar'
is tion of the expert should be, a
OF in the absence of any suffice
&c averment that they have act
IS beyond their power, or that
.1- order was fraudulently or
or properly obtained, their decis
. of is, at least, prima facie correc
ant not conclusive. 1t certainly (
all not be impeached by d merete
Wis nical denial that the services,
q r,,l,;oh II nos oriH