Evening star., 1951-04-26
Fairfax Will Sue
I Residents on
Bond Sale Delay
$3.50, 900 Actions
Against Rhinehurt,
King Authorized
By Mary Lou Werner

Ming authorized
By Mary Lou Werner
Fairfax attorneys today are pre-
pairing damage suits for $25O,000
each against two county residents
who have delayed sale of school
and courthouse construction bonds
with litigation.
The suits were authorized yes
terday by the county Board Of
Supervisors and School Board,
which have been unable to sell
the $11.5 million in bonds since
they were approved in a referen-
dun last May. The two boards
also decided to proceed on June
2 with sale of the two issues.
Bond counsel and local attorneys
employed by the two boards agreed
that an action for malicious prose-
cution was in order against Paul
E. Rhinehart, jr., and John H.
King.
Attorneys Cite Opinion.
TT is we'll settled that an ac-
Ition for malicious prosecution may
be maintained against one who
IbringS>succeSsive suits against the
same person upon the same cause
of action, after an adverse deci-
sion which should have settled
the controversy. said the at
torneys in written opinion.
The attorneys cited a court
opinion which states:
| 1T has often been said that
the law extends to an animal OF a
certain species the privilege OF
one bite, although moved thereto
by evil intend; but the immunity
goes no further. :"
Both Rhinehart and King have
had several bites without having
to answer to any of them," the
attorneys added.
Robert j. McCandlish, jr., at
torney employed by the county in
the bond dispute, said Mr.. King
and Mr.. Rhinehart have cost
the county at least 81 million
through their tactics"
Review Court Action.
The attorneys reviewed the his
tory of actions brought by Mr..
King and Mr.. Rhinehart against
| the bond sale, and gave the fol-
lowing reasons for recommending
legal action against them:
First, against Rhinehart be-
cause of the several actions he
has brought challenging the bond
issues, all raising the same issues.
all having been decided adversely
to him. The first action should
have ended the matter. BY the
institution of the later actions.
Rhinehart did so without probable
cause and created all the other
elements necessary for maintain
ling the action for malicious pro-
lsecution.
Second, against King because
he had his day in court when he
challenged the bond issue election
in May. 1850, which challenge
was decided adversely to him. He
is further bound as a taxpayer
by the adverse decision against
Rhinehart in the declaratory
judgment action. Yet, he per-
sisted in raising the same questions
in the injunction suits by his
answer asking for affirmative re-
lief"
e Have Filed Appeal Notice.
The declaratory judgement re-
iferred to was the second suit filed
by Mr.. Rhinehart, in which he
sought to have the bond issue
invalidated. Judge j. Jordan Tenn
pie decided the case against him
in Fairfax Circuit Court. and in
February granted a permanent in
junction restraining Mr., Rhinehart
from filing new suits against the
bond sale. Mr.. King joined Mr..
Rhinehart as a defendant in the
injunction suit. and the two since
have filed a notice of appeal.
John J. Pershing. bond counsel
to the county, advised the super
visors yesterday that June 18 is
the last day that Mr.. King and
Mr.. Rhinehart have to carry out
their appeal He said his firm was
convinced. however, that the suits
are of vexatious nature and that
Judge Temples decision will be
upheld by the Court of Appeals.
On that basis, he advised that the
bonds be, advertised June % and
bids accepted would be out of court
by that date, either by an adverse
decision of the appeals court or
by failure to complete their ap-
peal.
Mr.. King and Mr.. Rhinehart
have challenged sale of the bonds
on grounds that pending annexa-
ton suits by Falls Church and
Alexandria against the county
affect their validity. They claim
the bonds proposed to be sold are
not the same bonds that voters
approved, since the annexation
suits may alter the tax base Of
the county.
! Resolution Adopted.
On Monday night, the Falls
Church City Council adopted a
resolution offering to compromise
the annexation suit with Fairfax
County so the bonds could be sold.
Mr.. PerShing said the annexa-
tion suit, however, had "in no
way, shape or form" held up sale
Iof the bonds. Annexation suits,
he said. have mo relationship
Whatever on the county's power or
fright to sell bonds"
| The bond attorney said the court
had been of the same opinion in
this matter last May when Mr..