The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-05-11
BITTER FIGHT IS
 EXPECTED ON NEW
 MILK ORDINANCE.
Plea to Dissolve lnjuction to Be Brought by City, While Dairymen Will Seek to
 Have It Permanent

A bitter fight upon the city's proposed new milk pasteuriza- ton ordinance will be made be- lore Chancellor Hugh A. Locke in the chancery division of the circuit court Saturday morning at 10 o'clock.
 At that time the injunction, recently granted upon a bill filed by about To milk men of Birmingham will come up for hearing upon demurrers filed by City Attorney Fred G. Moore yesterday after~ noon and a motion to discharge the in- junction, which was filed by MT. Moore at the same time
 All preparations are being made by each side for a bitter legal struggle. The city will be represented by Fred G. Moore; the milk men will be represented by Attorneys White E. Gibson and Ben Davis, who filed the petition upon which the injunction was granted. The city will make every effort to have the in- junction dissolved.
 Four grounds are set up in the motion for the discharge of the injnction which was filed yesterday afternoon These grounds are that the bond made in the case Is insufficient, that the bond was not properly executed, that the bond re- quired to be made before the injunc- tion was granted has not been entered into by the complainants and that the bond was not properly executed in that it was executed by only one of the com plainants.
 As compliments in the suit there ap- the n fof mill Vbn respondents include the members of the city commission, Dr. J. D. Bowling and the other members of the city health department. The suit is styled on the papers filed yesterday as the case of 'E. l.. Wilkinson. ct als vs. N. A. Bar rett ct als."
 BILL ATTACKED
 Attacks upon the original bill of com plaint are made by MT. Moore in sixty three separate paragraphs and several sub-paragraphs. The demurrers cover eight typewriter pages.
 The most vigorous attack upon the bill of complaint is made upon the grounds that the respondents are sued in their individual capacity as private citizens. It maintains that as private citizens they are no more interested in the enforce ment of the milk ordinance than any other priva& citizen. Another hot point of contest is that the complainants have sustained no injury as a result of the proposed milk ordinance, and hence are not entitled to raise the points sought to be raised in the complaint.
 Opening with the usual allegations Of want of equits- in the bill the demurrers charge that the bill is multifarious and that there is misjoinder of parties. Tn subsequent paragraphs it is main tained that there is misionder of par ties because it does not appear from the bill that the complainants have 2 joint right to maintain the action, an'i that it does not appear that they have such a community of interest and would authorize the maintenance of the joint suit by the complainants.
 Paragraph 12 alleges that it appears that the complainants have a full, com plete and adequate remedy at law Y
 is then alleged that it does not appear that the comnlainants will be irreparably
 injured by the acts of the respondents against which the injunction is sought that it is not averred that the respon- dents are insolvent.
 It appears from the bill. say the de- murrers, that the comnlainants seek merely to enjoin the enforcement of q criminal or quasi-crininal ordinance without showing any irreparable injury, which would be caused by the enforce ment of the ordinance.
 NO INJURY
 No injury to property rishts is shown by the bill according to the demurrers. The bill seeks merely to enioin the com mission of trespass. An action for dam ages would constitute an adequate rem edy. The denrurrers maintain that it is not shown that thescomplainant's rights will be infringed, that it is not shown what their business is and that it is not shown how they will be injured.
 Paragraph 27 carries the allegation thai the city commission. health officer and others have been sued as private citizens and not in their official capacity, and that as private citizens they are no more interested in the milk ordinance than any other citizen.
 Sections of the bill attacking sections of the milk ordinance are demurred on the grounds that it does not show that any one of the compliments have aD- piled for a permit in accordance with the ordinance and have been refused. If is alleged that the eomplanants are not in position to raise the points sought to be raised because none of them have had their permits revoked under the ordi- nance. or that any of them have been convicted of violation of the ordinance. Allegatiohs that Birmingham will be deprived of raw milk supply under the ordinance are termed as mere conclu- sions of the pleader and the same al- legation is made in regard to the con tention that Birmingham will be forced to depend upon pasteurized supply The allegations of the original bill are at- tackled in the forty-seventh demurrer in regard to the allegations as to the stand ard of milk required The remaining paragraphs make general attacks upon various sections of the bill of complaint on the grounds already outlined INLAND WATERWAYS