OCR Text |
Show The Mandamus Airain The m:!i.'n on su appeal of the manJamu w:'- in the Tor-e!e eled ion cue :3 ar'j'.v-l 1 tst evi-v.ini: by ti:t respect itp iiitrne;-- o.t the parties to thcciUae. The r- of appeal was conceded, but the grialiLii; nf a stay ol proceeding? objected to by the p! tintifV attorney on Ibe grouud that it would work a hardship to his client, depriving him of what waa actually due him. Tii tnis the defendants' atlorueya r.'phed thit the ripht O! apjieal without a s-ty of proceedings would ba utterly uselcsa to the de feodant. If the appeal waa euslaincd by the eupremi court, provided it wfiB carried there, no benefit would accrue ac-crue to the plaintiff for the reason that he would havn previously been compelled to perform the very duty of which the appeal waa calculated to relieve him, unlesa the stay .laked lor was allowed. The judge, io a very brief review, stated chat the defend nuts were entitled to an appeal, aud be could not see wherein the plaintiQ' would be injured by a Btay of proceedings lor a few months, provided the bond was bo conditioned as to tecure him from harm, and he entertained the opinion that it could be framed in a manner which would so insure the plaintiff. He added that, had the case been brought by the citizens of the county, or the territory, the matter would doubtles3 wear a different aspect, but as the plaintiff brought the suit aa a j private individual, ha cou id not see ! wherein it would be detrimental. The stay ol proceedings was consequently granted and the bond on undertaking lised at f 1,000. peudiug an appeal to the supreme court. The tnntiou to quaah the writ waa briefly argued by Judge Hagan, and overruled. The defendant is given until thia erening to file the bond and notice of appeal. |