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


.s1 fom.5,g0q sir-~sri Ii3tt 80 yai'
villa TIavs et a. va WIN. Il. Joneset al,
p Fayetta county Coniu,on Pleas Court.
VIZ n sAFFoHb onlhe Bench \ i.a ~
olThis actioR was brought BY th
plaintiffs 10 set aside the proceed
ings Of the Commissioners Of Fay
etc County IN ordering the i'm
pro3ement of the State Road b.
grading, gravelihg, &c, and to en-
Join tile construction of the sai'
improvement, and the collection o
the assessmehtsto pay for thesame
The case has been engaging the at
tention Of the Counsel and the
Commissioner, Jas, P. Robinson
during most of the past Winter, anc
up to the time Of the meeting Of tho
Court Of Common Pleas on the 25t
Of February last, in taking the tes-
timony in writing, &c. yi1ssd 3
At that term of the Court the
case came on for trial, and during
the hearing the plaintiffs offered
certain testimony (which bad been
taken before the Commissioner,
subject to objection) for the pur-
pose Of showing that majority Of
he resident land holders along and
adjacent to The line Of said road
had not signed the petition TO The
Commissioners, dsbing for the said
Improvement (The Commission
ers had found that a majority had
signed said petition, and their rec
ord so showed.
To the reading and introduction
OF The said testimony the defend.
ents' counsel objected as incompe-
tent, upon grounds that will appear
in the opinion of the Court. The
objection was argued at great length
by counsel on both sides, and the
C0uFt, Hon. WIN. II. Stafford on the
bench, took the question under ad-
visement for some days, and finally
decided the question substantially
as follows. JHdge Stafford said |
The position assumed by the de.
fendents' counsel is that the Board
Of Commissioners, having obtained
Jurisdiction of the subject matter
by the presentation Of the petition
for the improvement, signed by
more than fDe land holders, the
filing of the bond, and the appoint
ment Of Viewers conformably to the
I'd section of theact, (vol. 65 o. L.
page Al, SEQ. 2, had full and com
plete power Ia the premises, and
their findings can only be inquired
into by a revising Court upon a
petition In error, unless 1t is char.
ged that the Commissioners acted
fraudulently, were guilty ofa breach
Of trust, on abused or exceeded the
powers conferred upon them by
statute, iotF ft n
On the part Of tile plaintiffs IT is
claimed that they are not concluded
by the action OF the Commission.
srs; that the power exercised by
Tho Board under the statute is not
Judicial, but that they are in the ex
srcise Of a naked statutory power
which must be strictly pursued
hat they could not spread the facts
upon the Commissioners record
by bill of exceptions, and that un
ess they could sustain this remedy
hey were without remedy.
1t was further contended by the
plaintiffs that the jurisdiction of
,he Commissioners depended on
he fact that majority DC. had
ilgned the petition, and unless such
majority &c. had signed said peti.
ion before ordering the improve
nent, the Commissioners acted {
Without Jurisdiction, and their pro
were void and that that
urisdictlonal fact is always inquir. Z
ble into. YEP Z
The questions involved are both !
Ilfllcult and important-importaht 5
i0t only TO these parties, but to the a
ommunlty and State at large; for 7
IndeF the recent legislation on the ]
ublecl petitions are being almost !
Iaily presented to the various !
Ioards of Commissioners In the
tate for similar improvements. =
The assessments complained ef,
Is conceded, were made by the !
roper Board upon which the pow :
= has been conferred by the stat q
10. The Board of Commissioners I
Il Fayette county has acted upon !,
hat power and ordered the i'm
,royement, and directed the as
essment II is not charged in the /
lainti6s' petition that the Board n
cted corruptly, or fraudulently, or q
A excess Of the powers conferred c
y statute, (Jndge Stafford here @
xamIned and commented upon the Il
Legations in the pleading atlength, l.
nd then proceedcd); II
| assame, first, that a Court Of. 4
equity will not interfere 70 control c
he exercise Of a discretionary I
over, when It ia honestly exercla- I
d, bat that Il will interfere when. q
yer rs influence is necessary to I
reyeDt abuse, injustice or oppres $
lon, the violation Of trust, or the {
onsnmmatiOn Of a fraud, and 4
ihenever a discretion rls Want6nly 5
r corfapily exettiseda t.gmo I
Secondly, That q Court Of Equity
a. uo power b integiere with or \