Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1870-07-29


pinecr. who are directed to proceed on the( blank)
day Of August 1869. These viewers are re.
ouired 10 reccOmmen dsuch Improvements as In
their opinion public necessity aud utility require
&C., and 10 report at September session. At the
September session Of 1859, (JOurnal N, page
l2i) they report that they met at the time and
place named IN the order, and find that public
necessity requires said Improvement. The
cont,iy commissioners therefore find that the
publid utility require said Improvement 10 be
made, ,rnnd that a majority OF the resident land
holders Of said county, where lands are reported
benefited, &c, and order as follows; The ditch
west side, 3 fest on bottom, &C., as In substance
askqd for in the pclitun recitde in the commits
sidnefs record. and further order ditch on part
Of Tie road on east side, part of second petit
ton This second petition, however, Is in no
way referred to in the record Of the mmission-
ers either directly or indirectly. Mr.. Donaldson
saya in relation to the time fixed IN the notice of
road NO. 10. When The commissioners record
shows no time fixed that he presumes 1t was af-
terwaril ixed by him, that 1t was the custom Of
the commissioners ~ leave the fixing Of the time
to him IN these road matters.
:. The ctsIs Of preliminary survey, &c. paid by
the chuntv 10 Dec session on this road No. 10,
Z $50 so, aside from the costs of county com
riisdoners AMI. county auditor which will be
about 4---. Notwithstanding the finding Of the
commissioners that the petition was signed by n
majority Of the resident landowners and was
necessary, Hc., and notwithstanding the large
expense Incurred as above, we find nm order on
record that said Improvement be dropped and
this oppears from their record 10 have been done
on rem0nstrancc present after they had
PASSED on petition and report Of viewers aud sur
veyor This we condsider thev Ind no power
to do, as the persons remonstratin-. evidently
stood by and saw the expenses increased there
on. Mr. st John. county commissioner, being
sworn by j. W. Ross, Notary Public, SAYS, N
the matter Of improving the McCutchenvillc 10 road
known as improved road No. 10, tn reason why
II was discontinued, was that some Of the petit
toners or portion of them repctitioned us (the
county commissioners) to throw il up. Says we
look bond. ] think according to law, IN case IL
wds not estNbishedto refund the amount paid
out by the county. We fpd the commissioners
paid J. A. Shannon $50 for written opinion in
road No. 10, which written opinion is not on file
Smong the papers; and the auditor, after being
duly sworn by J, W. Ross. Notary Public, says
he never saw said written opinion and thinks Il
was the journal entry only. Ifthe unbound writ
ten opinion is in nccOrdance with order or 'ur-
nal entry furnished bv him, we would take issue
with IT.. The commissioners undoubtedly had
plenty of valid reasons for disseminating said
road, but they have gnni outside anl gave an
invalid reason for thier action. We see no pow
er In tue Law 10 authorlzi tht ptymtnt of $50 To
J. A. shannon. We reccUmm md that cuunty
officers be required to take immediate stops tu
collect the 1910 5 OF expenses incurred and
paid out Of the county treasury, and that the
same be paid back % the county treasurer, to
reimburse the fund from whicl 1t was taken.
(TJ ne CONTINUED