Year: 1873

In the cases OF Joseph Samuels and j.
Chapus VS.. the Auditor and Treasurer on
:he applications for injunctions, continued
from last Saturday, the court discharged
She rule nis and dissolved the injunctiOns.


State eX rel Moore, Janney Il Hyams vs.
Dubuclet and Clinton.-Rcle tor contempt
against the Treasurer for refusing to obey
the mandamus of the court. Counsel at
first argued a motion for an appeal. On
:hs rule Mr.. Filleul appeared for the Treas
arer. The court deferred its opinion till
the disposal of the injunction cases was
effected. Plaintiff in rule put IN evidence
the protfer of the money yesterday morn
ing and the answer of the Treasurer declin-
ing to receive it, the demand Of Mr.. Jan.
ney for the money for his warrants and Mr..
Dubuclet's refusal to pay.


The court here said that the duties of
both Auditor and Treasurer were so clearly
defined By statute that there could be no
mistake. The language Of the decree was
such that no bubble could avail the de-
lendant. The decree was based on the
supposition that there was money in the
treasury. The Treasurer cannot say he
will not take money and then refuse to pay.
The language is, he shall receive it. If he
refuses, he is personally responsible. He
cannot refuse. If he does not pay it out Of
) the funds, he must pay it out OF his own
pocket. If the State had come prepared to





pensory action. The law allows no delay.
The mandamus does not lie if there be no
money in the treasury.


.. The plaintiffs then showed that Mr.. Hill
had rendered the money and the Treasurer
refused it.


Mr.. Fellows stated he had verbally told
Mr.. Dubuclet he could see no grounds for
an appeal; had written a letter which
should have reached the Treasurer at
y. NJ. yesterday that he should not appeal;
had received letter from him this morn
ing which contained his answer thereto.


Mr.. Filleul made the point that ten days
should elapse unless the Attorney General
waived an appeal.


The court suggested reading Of the
Code of Practice, and Mr.. Filleul saying he
had read it many times, the court remarked
j. would bear reading again.


Judge Cotton filed the sheriff's return.
and called attention to the answer Of the
Attorney General.


Mr.. Dubuclet on the stald-Said he had
not intended any contempt; had received
:he order of the court Monday at $50 T. NJ.


On cross oss-eXamination-Said he had heard
the order of the court on Saturday; did not
pay Monday because he had not e received
the decree; did not resolve to disobey the
order of the court when it was received;
declined to answer whether he would obey
the order now or not.


James Campbell testified he had run all
around the city Monday, and didn't find
Mr. Fellows; gave him letter this morn
ing.


Judge Cotton made brief but very lucid
argument on the question of contempt. If
there ever was case that called for action
on the part Of the court this was one. 1t
was plainly shown that the Treasurer's in
tent was to throw every obstable in the
way of the operation Of the order of the
court. Mr.. Dubuclet was acting in direct
opposition to the whole of the State govern
ment. He trifes with the order of the
court. The only way for him to escape
punishment was to comply with the order.