« PreviousContinue »
argued and submitted at the previous October term of said Court, was also decided, and the decree of the Circuit Court for the county of Wayne, in Chancery, dismissing the bill with costs, was affirmed. The case involved the question of the legality of the specific tax charged against the Company on certain items therein specified, for the year 1858, and consequently affected the question cf the amount of specific tax which the Company would be legally liable to pay for subse quent years. On two of the items the Court was equally divi. ded in opinion. The case, and the questions involved and decided, will be found reported in the 9th Michigan Reports,
The amount of annual tax called in question was $11,718 34; and the annual amount of tax on the items on which the Court was equally divided in opinion is $3,265 95. This last amount I am informed the Company still contests, and as will be seen hereafter in this report, it is again the subject of litigation between the Company and the Auditor General.
At the last April term of the Supreme Court, the case of The People vs. Addison P. Cook, was argued on the part of the defendant, and submitted on the part of the People withont ar. gument. In this
which was on an information for perjury, the conviction in the Court below was, by the Supreme Court, quashed, on the ground that the defendant had been once tried on the same charge and acquitted. At the same April term I also appeared for the people, and argued the case of William Maher vs. The People, and the case of Thomas Delaney vs. The People, in .each of which cases the judgment was reversed. The case of Maher was a charge of an assault with intent to murder, and of Delaney, a charge of lewd and lascivious cohabitation.
At the same term I also, on behalf of the people, and argued the following cases, viz: George W. Washburn vs. The People, William Hicks vs. The People, John Davis vs. The People, and The People vs. Charles F. Clark. Washburn in the Court below had been convicted of manslaughter ; Hicks of incest;
and Davis of burglary; and in each case the judgment of the Court below was affirmed. The question whether it was necessary to set forth and aver in the information filed under the law of 1859, that a preliminary examination of the defendant, on the charge, had been had before a magistrate, and a holding for trial thereon, was involved in each of these cases, in addition to other points raised. In the case of The People vs. Charles F. Clark, which was on an information charging him with conspiring with a person unknown, by divers false pretenses, to cheat and defraud the complainant of his moneys, &c., and which was taken to the Supreme Court from the Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit, on bill of exceptions, the jury having rendered a verdict of guilty against the defendant, the exceptions were over-ruled and the Court below directed to give judgment against the defendant, on the verdict. At the same term, in the case of Carlton vs. The People, submitted in October, 1861, a decision was rendered affirming the judgment of the Court below, the Court being equally di
vided in opinion on one of the points raised by the plaintiff'in error. 1 Also, in the case of Cross vs. The People, submitted at same Octo
ber term, 1861, the errors alleged were overruled, except as to the form of the order made in the Court below, which order was quashed, and the cause remanded to the Court below for further proceedings. The case was a proceeding under the Bastardy Act, R. S. 1846, chap. 42.
At the same term of April, 1862, in the case of John Drennan vs. The People, argued and submitted at the April term, 1861, the judgment of the Court below was reversed. was a charge of assault with intent to murder. ·
At the October term of the Supreme Court, 1862, I also appeared on behalf of the People, and submitted on briefs the case of The People vs. Charles LeRoy, et al., which is still held by the Court under advisement. I also submitted briefs in the case of Alexander Beach vs. The People, which case was subsequently, at the same term argued by counsel and submitted, and the decision of the Court was rendered reversing
the judgment of the Court below, and ordering a new trial. The information in this case charged the defendant below, Beach, with maintaining a nuisance, in keeping up a certain mill pond, near Jonesville, in the county of fillsdale.
In the chancery suit commenced by my predecessor, on be half of The People vs. Ebenezer Warner, respecting a certain wharf, at the lower end of the canal at the Sault St. Mary, and which is referred to in my last report, no further proceedings have been had since the making of said report,—the Legislature, at the extra session in 1862, having made provision, by act No. 20 of said session, page 51, for an arrangement and settlement of the matter in dispute, and the removal of the wharf, by the Canal Board of Control, in accordance with the terms of a proposed amicable arrangement referred to in my last report, but I am not advised that any final action has yet been had in the premises by said board, under said act.
The case of the mortgage foreclosure of The People vs. Dew. ey, Hazelton et al., in the Genesee Circuit, in Chancery, has not been brought on to a final hearing as yet, owing in part to a temporary suspension of Courts in said Circuit, during the ex. citement attendant upon the raising of volunteers for the war the past suminer, and in part to the absence of counsel, and to sickness ; but some further evidence has been taken, and the proofs may be considered as closed and the cause ready for hearing
The three chancery suits in relation to taxes, commenced last year against the Auditor General, two in Bay County and one in the County of Wayne, and which are specified in my last report, are all at issue by the filing of answers and replications in the two former, and demurrer in the last, but no proofs have been taken in the former, nor hearing had of the one pen. ding, in Wayne Circuit, although in the last the brief has been prepared for the hearing.
In the suit in the Ingham Circuit, which was commenced by summons in November, 1861, on behalf of The People against the late State Treasurer and his bail, on the official bond of
that officer, a declaration has been filed, and all the defendants therein, viz: John McKinney, Silas M. Holmes, Whitney Jones, Champlin Havens and Allen R. Burr, have appeared by their respective attorneys.
Three of the defendants, Holmes, Burr and Jones, have filed their answer to part of the declaration, and pleaded to the remainder, and issue has been joined on the demurrer. The other defendants have put in their plea and notice of special matters, in defense.
The questions raised by the demurrer have been submitted to the Court on written briefs, and are at present held by the Court under advisement.
In August last the Michigan Southern and Northern Ind'ana Railroad Company filed its bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, in Chancery, against the Auditor General, to restrain him from collecting the sum of $19,017 90, being the amount claimed by said officer to be due from said Company for balance of specific taxes unpaid in account charged against said Company for the years 1858, 1859, 1860 and 1861, up to June 1st, 1862, and obtained and served on him a temporary injunction. I caused the appearance of the Auditor General to be entered in said cause, and have since drawn up and filed his answer therein, and served a copy on the Company's solicitor, but the time for filing replication thereto has not yet expired.
The Company in this suit again seek to raise the question of the legality of the specific tax on the two items in the former suit against the late Auditor General, in regard to which the Supreme Court was equally divided in opinion, (see 9th Mich. Reports, p. 448,) and also a question in regard to interest on specific taxes after they are due and payable, when not paid at maturity.
The amount of tax per year involved and thus sought to be contested by the Company, is $3,265 95.
The case of The People vs. the Phoenix Bank, under the provisions of Joint Resolution No. 1, Laws of 1861, p. 577, has
been continued in charge of the late Attorney General, but as I am advised the same has not yet been heard or argued, but is still pending in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Under a resolution found in the Journal of the Senate of this State, session of 1862, January 17th, p. 171, a committee of three of that body was appointed to investigate the military expenditures of the State during the year 1861, and to report the result of their investigations to the Attorney General within thirty days thereafter. Said committee have made their report to me, but on an examination of the same, not finding anything which appeared to call for any official action on my part, and the resolution not specifying for what purpose said report was so directed to be made to this office, the same has been printed, and a copy thereof is herewith transmitted to the Legislature, that they may be advised of the result of the labors of said committee, and may take such action in regard to said report as they may deem advisable. From said report it appears that the committee, as the result of their in. vestigation, unanimously came to the conclusion “ that the military expenditures of the State during said year 1861, were conducted with ability and fidelity, and that strict economy characterized generally every branch of the service, and that the several officers and agents having charge of the details of those expenditures, are justly entitled to the confidence of the people of the State, as having discharged their duties impar. tially, honestly and faithfully."
The official correspondence of this office each year, is a work of no small labor, and in addition to my own services, the duties of the office have called in frequent requisition the labors of a clerk, thus demonstrating the wisdom and propriety of the legislative provision for such assistance.
The annual reports of many of the Prosecuting Attorneys to this office, for this year, as oftentimes heretofore, have been made long after the time required by law, and some few, it will be seen, still neglect to make any report. In the case of all