Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1869-04-22


kind could be made. 1t is true tina
Jones need not have acted, There
was a quorum without him which
might have made the order, But
are the acts of the Oommissloners
void because Jones dta act n am
disposed to adopt the ruling in 19
tJohnson. 400, and also hold with
Chief Justice Shaw in Ipswich VS.,
Commissioned l6fE Essex, that such
interest does not disqualify, and
even II it did, the objection was
clearly waived 10y not having Been
taken at the time the order was
under consideration before the
Board nqAs noobjeetiQn, was, taken
! lby the plaintiffs OF tteif counsel to
| the sitting of DR.. Jones, by reason
ofhis interest, &C., although they
were present and knew of the oh,
lection, ! shall regard the objection
as waived. ,eA nl7l M a'llt Sisiaa T
The objection that Mrs. Jones,
his wife, was one Of the petitioners,
cannot be sustained, and even if it
could, it9has ,alsO been waived, as ]
have already seen. sts'igHe
But aside from allthisg ID appears
from the record that there was a
legal quorum without Jones. mt is
claimed, however, that Hegler, an
other Commissioners, did not act,
and that Clarke and Jones alone
made the order. This, however, Is
not sustained. The record shows,
as well as the proof that Hegler
did act. az gIIa III gfaL
The plaintiffs petition also char
ges preetpttancyof action on the
part of the Commissioners; that
they should have granted their
counseltime upon his application
to inquire into the facts, &c. This
was matter entirely within the dis
cretion of the Commissioners. No
good ground for postponing the
of the matter was
presented to the Commissioners,
but it was simply hoped blythe
counsel that if time was given,
something Objectionable mightpos-
sibly be discovered. So far from
the action Of the Commissioners
being precipttate, objections and
arguments OF. counsel were heard,
and thequestions determined in the
most public manner, in the Court
House Of the county, where large
Of persons, favorable as
well as opposed to the road, were
assembled; and after notice had
been given by public advertisement
in the newspaper for nearly two
weeks. Not only was no good rea-
son shown for further time, but no
Injustice is shown to have resulted,
The charge that Creamer, the
acted frauduleltly in not
'etuning all the lots and lands
which the viewers determined would
'e benefited by, and ought to be
for, said Improvement, is
'holly aHJouaded; and the charge
hat Creamer was not sworn may !
ave been an irregularity, but does !
lot inyalidate the proceedings. The
notice given by the Auditor OF the
ime and place of meeting of the
liewers was sufficient, and accord
ng to the mode Of computing time
n Ohio, was published for 3 weeks
IS required by statute.
After careful investigation Of
he whole case, | do not find the
Of the plaintiffs petition
ustalned, and shall therefore order
he injunction heretofore granted
. be dissolved, and this action
ismissed at the costs Of the Plain
ifs. aia sol iIha) 800 gp q
Briggs & Palmer, Mills Gardner,
!. A. Harrison, and James Sloan
'ere Counsel for Plaintiffs; and
l. B, Maynard, M. J. Williams and
|. H. Hunter appeared as Counsel
or Defendants. raH |