Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-07-24
EXPECTED HAPPENS
IN STREET AFFAIRS
DepOsed Commissioners Start
Legal Proceedings in Fight to
Retain Their Offices, Invoking
Aid of Two Courts - Nine
Reasons Set Forth

Proceedings in two courts. the Vermont
Supreme and the Chittenden county. were
started Monday by the counsel for for
mer Street Commissioners John l.. Ber-
geron and Charles L. Dolan in their fight
to retain their offices. The petition to
the Supreme Court was for writs of
certlorari. declaring that the city council
had not granted them n fair and just
trial, and the petitions to the Chittenden
county court, presented to Chancellor
Sherman r. Mouton. asked for an injunc-
ton to restrain the new commissioners,
Messrs Magner and Unsworth, from
transacting any business of the depart
ment until the court had decided the is
sue. Chancellor Moulton has not acted on
the injunction petition because both sides
wanted more time to file additional
papers.
A citation was served on Commissioners
Magner and Unsworth citing them to ap-
pear before Chancellor Moulton on Mon
day morning at 1890 o'clock to show
cause why an injunction should not be
granted restraining them for perform
ing any duties as street commissioners.
In the petition for the injunction there
were nine reasons set forth, as follows:
First that no evidence and not suf-
fcient evidence had been produced to
prove the charges of removal of Messrs.
Dolan and Bergeron.
Second, that the vote of removal was
illegal and void; that the vote of the APP
pointment of the new commissioners was
void for the following reasons mo evil
dence; 'in pursuance Of a scheme"
Third. that they have petitioned the
Supreme Court to have the proceedings
of the council declared unlawful on a
writ of certiorarl.
Fourth, that the scheme above referred
to would be detrimental to the public in
terest.
Fifth, that the defendants are attempt
ing to perform duties while plaintiffs are
performing same duties.
Sixth, that defendants threaten tc
superintend the city workmen, that being
done now by plaintiffs.
Seven, that summer work ought not &c
be interrupted and 1t would be by the
assumption of office by defendants; thai
irreparable injury to- public interests
would occur II injunction were no
granted.
Eight that no official notice Of thu
action Of the council has been given plain
tiffs.
Nine, that defendant Unsworth hal
given such notice and demanded the key!
and other things.
The session before Chancellor Moultor
lasted until afternoon, when an indefinite
adjournment was taken. Attorneys fo
both sides, together with the two new
commissioners. were present. Attorney Z
P. Cowles appeared for the plaintiffs II
behalf oe Attorney V. A. Billiard. whit
was unable to be present. Attorne.
Warren r. Austin for the city council
presented q motion to the court askint
that the petition for an injunction b
denied
He based his petition upon the groun'
that as Judgment has been rendered b,
a competent court or body with jud1cia
powers the verdict should stand until tina
Judgment Is set aside as equity has n
Jurisdiction In such a case. AS the prope
method OF appealing. a writ of certioraT
has been applied for by the deposed com
rnss.oners. q court of equity cannot act,
Attorney Cowles, In his argument TO
the issuing of the writ Of injunction. cite
many cases In support of such action an
declared that equity courts had jurisdio
ton in such a matter prior to an actio
by the Supreme Court, and that tn
court order an injunction issued to re
strain the new commissioners from act
ing in their official capacity