Year: 1874

I Court lem.


For several days the Injunction sued out
by Colonel Field against the appropriation
bill has been on trial on the merits in the
Superior District Court. The State, through


the Attorney General, first placed Auditor
Clinton on the stand to show the amount of
the debt Of the State, of warrants outstand-
ing, of taxes and the probable amount of


revenue, and the amount Of appropriations


in excess of the State debt. This was in
accordance with the ruling Of the court,
that the first thing to be ascertained, in
substance, was whether there was money


enough in the treasury to meet the appro-
priations. If there was not, then those


least founded in law should be sacrificed.
If there was, then it wsuld be time enough
to consider whether there were any items
which were of themselves 60 unfOunded
either by being indefinite, unconstitutional


or fraudulent, as to be properly enjoined or
not.


The first Intervention considered was
that Of H. s. Good, who appeared in sup
port of the injunction, alleging an interest


as q taxpayer in preventing the payment of
unwarrantable claims. To the fling of this
Intervention Alfred Shaw, Esq, represent
ing many intervenors, objected. Should it
be allowed it might open door to the prsc-
tice Of great injustice. Mr.. Good might be
the best man in the world, and his attor-
neys most conscientious lawyers, but to


to allow him to intervene to aid, AZ pre-
tended, the State, gave him too much
power. He claimed to be mere taxpayer,
and appeared as such. If he could do so,


80 might every taxpayer, and this court
would be choked by such interventions,
the sole effect being to block the wheels of
justice and prevent all possibility of an
efectual decision. He had no real interest
in any case, and yet he might interfere IN
each. The court might be convinced that
an appropriation was . proper one, and the
injunction could not be maintained against
it. and yet Mr.. Good might defeat the de-
cree by an appeal. The Attorney General
might be satisfied with the decision of the
court, but he would have nothing to say
against this intervenor's right of appeal if he
chose to exercise it. In the hands of bad
man, or one devoted to his personal inter-
est, the power such an intervenOr would
have would be so destructive of justice that
It would even threaten the existence of the
court.


Colonel Field stated he had accepted the
assistance of Mr.. Good aud considered the
Intervention q proper one:


Judge Hawkins said that 60 far as the in
tervenors were concerned, they had nothing
to do with the opposing Intervention of Mr..
Good. They had no right to object to it.
He then considered deliberately the right of
taxpayer, and concluded that there was
no ground for that intervention. The At
torney General appeared for the State and
the taxpayer and would protect his interest.


The numerous interventiOns were then
presented and testimony offered in all of
them.


Judge Hawkins said that there was no
need of testimony. Indeed, it was not
proper. Those appropriations which were
for definite amount were upon a condition





Legislature had passed upon, and it would
be encroaching on its functions to inquire
into.


The witnesses presented their testimony
in every possible aspect, but in every in
stance it was rejected, except SO far as re-
lated to the matter of correction, and in
some few cases Identification.


Judge Hawkins repeated over and over
again that the question in the case was
whether there was or would be money in
the treasury. If there was not, even the
most superior claims must suffer. That
must be ascertained first. He was severe
on the practice of issuing warrants. 1t had
become general idea that everybody was
entitled to q warrant when they had
claim. 1t was q mistake. This court had
always maintained, and the Supreme Court,
in the case Of Nixon, held that q warrant
was q check. That could not be issued |
unless there was money. In regard to some |
claims, the justice of them was made ap-
parent by the act recognizing them. But |
hey were of no effect unless there was
money to pay them. All the intervenors were
n the position of defendants. They were
.njoined. If the Injunction should be re-
moved they might obtain their money with
'ut further order, but if the Auditor
'efueed they had only advanced one step.
They must stand or fall by the result in the
main case, but their right of proceeding by
'ther legal process would be reserved.


The court was exceedingly minute in
living its ruling in all cases but reserved
ii cases whether submitted or not


The patience of Judge Hawkins and the
variable attention he gives TO counsel was
ever more marked than in the hearing of
he claims of the intervenors in this case,
nd although never varying from the rule
aid down when the case was first taken up,
9 has never failed to listen attentively to
IL that has been offered in the way of
rgument.


In the First District Court the record is
lch that every one must. award great
redit to the new jury system. District At
'rney McPhelin ought to be q happy man.
areful in preparing his informations, never
unless he believes the accused
nifty, and never coming to trial unless
3 thinks the State can present case, the !
sw panel has sustained him wonderfully.
uilty, they have said, in every case but ]
le, and that was q mistrial. Yesterday
Q jury gave HIM six convictions, three of
g Williams family being victims. and one I
'linquent saved them the trouble By plead
g guilty.


The Opera House.


To-day st the matinee nrrforma1ra a. | Il