Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1867-01-17

nstico Of any kind is required 10 the law {,
be given TO the adjoining ;proprietors, fol
the very obvious reason that no one is ol
can be injured by the repert and proceeding,
up to thi. point
The public have . right to the easement
occupied by the cid read. They hsvs the
right to use it for al purposes Of travel ;
and TO straiehteh, grade, pave, gravel, plank
or nacsdamire in aid OF such travel, is no
more than could have been done under the
general law, without the aid Of the law Of
April 8, 1866, and, Of course, with it.
The power conferred in this law to i'm
prove existing roads requires no law to sp-
propristo land along the line the law
grants no such power, nor is such needed
to full execution Of the law.
If the Commissioners should carry cut
the order on their journal, to open the road
as surveyed through tho land of the plain
tiff, materially differing ss il does from the
existing public highway, without the power
in the law Of appropriation, and, Of course,
Of rendering compensation, it would be .
violation Of the 10th section Of the Bill of
Rights, which provides, substantially. that
in all cases where private property shall be
taken for public use. q compensation there
for shall first be made in money.
The Commissioners have adopted this
new route through the plaintiff . lsud they
have ordered their engineer 10 proceed to
open the same the engineer can make no
contract without their approval, and they
provide the means of payment. They are
therefore the proper defendants as to this
point; and ss against them and oil acting
under their authority an injunction will be
allowed, restraining them from entering
upon the premises Of the plaintiff, TO open
the new roadl across his lands--a proper
case for an injunction having been made in
the petition.
Third. That the Commissioners be en-
Joined from issuing the bonds of the County
for the construction Of said road, as speci6-
cd in the 5th section ofsaid act, thereby loan
ing the credit of the County, in violation of
the Constitution (Article 8, Sec. g.
The averments in the petition in this case
are not such ss to enable the Court to de-
termine the question sought to be raised by
the pstiiioA, 1t AYERS that the Commi :
sioners are about to issue the bonds of the
County, ss provided in the 5th section Of
the act. No sverment that any steps have
been taken to thst end no avermsnt what
the tenor and effect of the bonds are to be-,
fever issued, or whether the funds Of the
County are to be pledged for their redemp,
ton, or whether the proceeds arising from
the assessment upon the property aloDE the
liae Of the Improvement are enly to be
pledged. Hence, it becomes unnecessary to
decide whether bonds issued in pursuance
of the 5th section Of the act of April s, 1866,
would be violation of the 9th section. ar
ticle .. of the Constitution, which provides
THAT the General Assembly shall never au-
thorize any county, city, town, or township,
by vote of its citizens or otherwise, 10 be.
come . stockhoder in any joint stock con-
pany, corporation, or association whatever,
or to raise meney for, loan its credit to, OF
in aid Of any such company, corporation, OF
association.
ORDER or THE COURT.
William Lash Ordered that an in.
vs.. junction be allowed in
The Board Of Co. this case restraining
Commissioners. the Com missioners and
oil acting under their suthority frem enter.
ing upon the premises of the plaintiff and
constructing . read As laid out and surveyed
through the premises described in the peti.
tion, under tho sct Of April 5, 1866, until
the coming in of the answer or the further