The Waterbury Democrat., 1946-04-24
cassidy
CoontInued from Page D

NGOnbluue0 ATOlu EuhG ~
demurrer. which will be aired in the
court May 8. was made to that por-
ton Of the Cassidy complaint which
asks for q permanent Injunction re-
streaming tax collection based on the
l04S Grand List; but in substance
Il Is similar TO the one sustained to-
day.
Also scheduled for a hearing Is a
motion for q bond, a relatively min
or issue which however, may pro-
duce vast repercussions, The motion,
which will be heard Friday, was
made by the city, which requests
Cassidy to produce a bond to cover
possible costs which he would have
to pay II he lost,
The city recently lost out in Com
mon Pleas Court in the CASSIDY
parking meter case, when the court
ruled Cassidy, although the loser,
did not have to pay costs. There
was no bond involved
The motion for the bond was filed
by Special City Attorney William B.
Fitzgerald, Corporation Counsel
Maurice T. Healey, and Assistant
Corporation Counsel John Mem
brine, who also presented the de-
murrers In behalf OF the city. Attor-
ney Cassidy appears for himself
and also Is represented by Attorneys
Alfred L. Finkelstein and Walter w.
Smith.
Stresses Effects
Judge Quinlan in his decision to-
day, in which he sustained the city's
demurrer to the temporary injunc-
ton motion on six grounds, pointed
to the far-reaching effects OF a
temporary injunction.
Only twice in the state have in"
functions been issued restraining tax
collection, once in case where eX-
ednpt property was taxed and am
other time where the assessment was
made against q former owner, Judge
Quinlan points out.
He quotes the Supreme Court,
which once stated ITO invalidate
the entire grand list Of municip-
atty Is an act fraught with very
serious consequences"
Judge Quinlan points out that
granting OF a temporary injunction
lies in the sound discretion" OF
the court. Then he refers to the
fact that there can be no appeal
from a temporary injunction and
quotes Judge IngliS who said If
temporary injunction Is once issued
there Is no stay possible and the
defendant may be thereby deprived
Of his rights without the opportuni-
ty OF review by the appellate court
OF the questions involved"
Emphasize Points OF Injury
Judge Quinlan states that unless
the rights Of the plaintiff are clear
and he Is reasonably certain to
prevail In the main action q tenn
porary injunction should not be
issued.
In speaking OF the effect Of an
injunction In tax case, Judge
Quinlan states, There is the very
compelling factor OF injury to the
public and It's finances. In such q
circumstance where the harm, loss
and inconvenience to the public
would be greater and diSpropor-
tionate to the injury OF one person
or a group Of persons then the
issuance Of q temporary injunction
would constitute an unwarranted
exercise Of the injunctive remedy
and OF equitable powers.
Judge Quinlan quotes from the
case OF Waterbury Savings Bank
against Lawler:
THE policy OF our law has now
become quite well settled, that the
extraordinary remedy by injunction
cannot be invoked TO hinder or In
terfere withoa collector OF taxes in
the discharge Of his public duty,
because :. . 1t would interrupt the
collection Of taxes, one OF the most
important attributes Of the sover-
eign power, one Of its most vital
functions. Such an interference
might, at times, be dangerous to the
safety Of the state, and Is not to
be resorted TO except for the most
imperative reasons"
The demurrer sustained today
contained all Of the claims made
by the city In the other demurrer
which will be argued May 3. The
hearing on that demurrer was
claimed by the plaintiffs shortly