REPORT.

STATE OF MICHIGAN,

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Lansing, July 1, 1890.

To the Governor and Legislature of the State of Michigan:

In compliance with the statute I have the honor to report that the following schedules contain a statement of the business transacted by the Attorney General from Jan. 1, 1890, to July 1, 1890. In making this report as of July 1, it is believed that it is in accordance with the spirit of the law of 1887 changing the fiscal year and requiring the reports of the various officers to be made in compliance therewith. The advantage of making the report as of that date is obvious, it giving time for the preparation of the report during the term of each incumbent of the office.

Owing to the illness of my predecessor, Hon. S. V. R. Trowbridge, no report was made for this office for the preceding year, and for that reason I have included in this report the abstract of the business transacted by the prosecuting attorneys of the State reported, for the calendar year 1889. Before proceeding to a statement of the business transacted by the office I may be permitted to recommend that the statute, requiring the prosecuting attorneys of the State to report to the Attorney General, be changed so as to require the reports to be made to the State Board of Corrections and Charities. These reports of the prosecuting attorneys to the Attorney General furnish about the only data for criminal statistics under the laws of this State, and the Secretary of the Board of Corrections and Charities has been to this office frequently for information which could not be furnished. That Board has constantly under consideration the subject of penology, for the study of which subject these reports are principally useful, and it is believed that it would be an advantage to the Board and beneficial to the public at large to have the reports made to the Board instead of to this office. The reports at present are entirely too meager to be of very great service, and the members of the board realizing the importance of criminal statistics and the necessity of making them as complete as possible, would be able surely to make a great and important improvement in this matter, which is of so much public concern. The section of the statute required to be amended to make such a change is section 554 of Howell's statutes.

In case this recommendation should not meet with the approval of the legislature, the statute, requiring reports from the prosecuting attorneys to the Attorney General, should be changed so as to require the report to be made for the year ending June 30, instead of December 31. additional burden or trouble would be imposed upon the prosecuting attorneys by such provision, and it would be of great convenience to this office.

No

Very respectfully,

B. W. HUSTON,
Attorney General.

SCHEDULE A.

This schedule contains a list of all chancery cases commenced or completed, between January 1, and July 1, 1890, or pending, in which the State is directly interested.

State of Michigan vs. Jackson, Lansing & Saginaw Railroad Company, Henry B. Ledyard, Ashley Pond and Orlando M. Barnes. This case was commenced in the circuit court for Ingham county, in chancery, to recover certain swamp lands granted to the State of Michigan under the law of 1850, by the United States Congress. The defendants have transferred the same to the United States circuit court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and the proofs are partially taken.

The State of Michigan vs. The Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad Company, the Continental Improvement Company, William H. Barnes, and the Philadelphia Safe Deposit and Insurance Company. This suit was brought for the purpose of recovering certain swamp lands granted to the State of Michigan by the United States Congress in 1850, and in this case, the issue has been joined, and proofs partially taken.

State of Michigan vs. Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad Company, A. C. Newton, Oliver Prescott and William W. Crapo. Bill in chancery in the Ingham county circuit court for the recovery of certain swamp lands granted to the State of Michigan by act of Congress in 1850. obtained a decree and the defendants have appealed to the Supreme Court of this State.

State

The State of Michigan vs. Edward W. Sparrow and the Michigan Land and Lumber Company Limited. Information in chancery. An information in chancery was filed in the Ingham circuit court, to cancel certain patents issued by the State, to Edward W. Sparrow for certain swamp lands, on the alleged ground that said patents were improvidently issued. This suit is in the same situation as the preceding case.

The People vs. Charles H. Hackly, et al. Bill in chancery to enforce tax lien, in Midland circuit court. This suit grows out of the same matter, as that of Stevens, Auditor General, vs. Lake George and Muskegon River Railroad Company. The State obtained a decree in the circuit court, an appeal was taken by the defendants, and decree modified by the Supreme Court at the October term.

People of the State of Michigan, vs. Mutual Life Association of Michigan. Petition to wind up the affairs of the company and for receiver. Decree obtained and receiver appointed.

In the matter of the petition of the Toledo, Ann Arbor & Northern Michigan Railway Company to abandon a portion of its line in the counties of Washtenaw and Oakland. Pending.

Auditor General in behalf of the State of Michigan, vs. W. B. & E. W. Stiles. Appeal from Newaygo in chancery. This was a case arising under the tax law of 1889. In the circuit court for the county of Newaygo a decree was obtained in favor of the State; defendants appealed and the decree was affirmed in the Supreme Court with costs.

SCHEDULE B.

This schedule contains the title of all chancery cases commenced or determined, between January 1, and July 1, 1890, or pending, in which some State officer has been made a party, but in which the State has no direct interest. These cases have been referred to the prosecuting attorneys of the various counties in which they are pending and left in their charge.

Fred Schneider rs. Thomas Bacon, Drain Commissioner and Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General. Bill in chancery in Sanilac county circuit court. Hugh Campbell vs. Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General, and Wm. E. Magill, county treasurer of Bay county. Bill in chancery in Bay county circuit court.

Robert Maxwell vs. Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General, and Wm. E. Magill, county treasurer of Bay county. Bill in chancery in Bay county circuit court.

Margaret A. Campbell vs. Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General, et al. Bill in chancery in Bay county circuit court.

Chicago & North Western Railway Company et al. vs. Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General et al. Bill in chancery in Menominee county circuit

court.

Allen Shelden vs. Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General et al. chancery in Huron county circuit court.

Bill in

Annie Malaney vs. Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General et al. Bill in chancery in Bay county circuit court.

Samuel Moore vs. Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General, and Charles L. Messmore, county treasurer of Sanilac county. Bill in chancery in Sanilac county circuit court.

John E. Simonson et al. vs. Wm. E. Magill et al. Bill in chancery in Bay county circuit court.

Albert D. Bechtel et al. vs. the city of Saginaw et al. in Saginaw county circuit court.

Bill in chancery Robert Rice et al. vs. the city of Saginaw et al. Bill in chancery in Saginaw county circuit court.

Jonathan Boyce vs. Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General et al. Bill in chancery in Roscommon county circuit court.

Lake Superior Ship Canal Railway and Iron Company vs. school district No. 1 township of Hancock, Auditor General of the State of Michigan and J. F. Hambitzer, treasurer of Houghton county. Bill in chancery in Houghton county circuit court.

SCHEDULE C.

This schedule contains a list of mandamus cases, quo warranto and other proceedings commenced by the Attorney General in behalf of the State or commenced by other parties against the State in which the State is directly interested.*

Adoniram J. Smith vs. The Auditor General, mandamus to compel issuing of warrant for payment of State bounty-denied.

Geo. P. Hopkins vs. The Board of State Auditors, mandamus to compel allowance for services under Act. No. 72 Public acts of 1887-granted. The Seneca Mining Company vs. the Secretary of the State of Michigan, mandamus to compel filing of articles of association-granted.

Edward Rode vs. Ralph Phelps, County Treasurer of Wayne county, mandamus to compel acceptance of liquor bond-granted.

The Fort Street Union Depot Company vs. State board of railway crossings, mandamus to compel board to set aside conditional order, denied, motion for reargument pending.

John W. Feek vs. The Township Board of the Township of Bloomingdale, mandamus to compel acceptance of liquor bond-denied with costs. Daniel Sullivan vs. James Haug, Justice of the Peace of Detroit. Mandamus to compel acceptance of recognizance-denied.

MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS PENDING.

Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General of the State of Michigan vs. The Board of Supervisors of Midland county, to compel apportionment of indebtedness due the State.

Auditor General of the State of Michigan vs. The Board of Supervisors of Allegan county. Same as last above.

QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS PENDING.

The People ex rel. the Attorney General vs. the National Loan and Investment Company of Detroit. Information to test the powers of the com

pany.

*In the case of Thomas Wellman vs. the Ghicago & Grand Trunk Railway Company which is now pending, neither the State nor any State officer is interested, but upon the removal of the case to the Supreme Court the State appeared and took part for the purpose of sustaining the two cent mileage law the constitutionality of which is involved in the case.