Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1870-07-29
Report Of Investigating Committee,
Appointed by the Court Of Common Pleas,
70 Investigate the Wood County Commits
sioners' Report for the Year ending Sep
tember Q, 1859,
To he Honorable c6ur, Of oOmmsn Pleas, Wooc
County, Ohio.

tember 9, 1859.
To n. Honorable cour, of oOmmsn Pleas, Wood
County, Ohio.
Your Committee, George Lnskey and James r.
Tyler, appointed by the Court OF Common Pleas
to investigate and examine the Report of the
Board Of Commissioners fled Sept "a, 1859, and
for the year ending Sept. g. 1879, beg leave to
report as follows;
Previous to entering upon our duties as
commission to examine the official transactions
Of the County Commissioners of Wood county,
Ohio, aud the financial affairs Of said county, we
called to our assistance j. w. Ross TO act as
clerk IN taking down our examinations and wri
ting out report Of same. Before noticing the items
In the report, your committee would say that
the document itself is not such MS we think the
law requires. II is not detailed report Of their
official transactions during the year next pre-
ceedng the time Of making the same. II does
not, in our judgement give an accurate state
ment Of the financial affairs Of this county.
We think the total receipts and expenditures
Of the several funds tor the whole year should
have been given aud included in the report, to
make Il a full satisfactory exhibit of the inan-
cial affairs Of the county, as the law seems to
require. The report gives no account OF tllisOr-
der transferring nearly $4,000 Of various
funds, most of which we think was done with
out authority Of law. 1t gives no account oithe
sale Of the Jail in Perrysburg II says nothing
about the purchase Of lots in Bowling Green,
aud the erection Of Court House aud Jail there
on. This latter omission Is that involved the
receipts and expenditures Of great many thOus-
and dollars, and was the subject Of much com
ment in the county, and we cannot see how they
could have overljuked il. II contains only the
balance Of the collections on the Duplicate Of
Dsc. 20, 1853. and the collections and disburs-
ments in full of the Duplicate Of June 20, 1859.
The collection on the first half Of the Duplicate
of 1868 was Sl29,lOl s6, while the collection on
the last half of tax duplicate was.ouly $50, ,5e9s
IS, which latter is all that is fully contained in
the report. 1t says nothing abuut the many
thousand dollars OF county bonds issued by them.
For these and many other omissions we think the
report does not meet the requirements OF the law,
but we have proceeded to examine II carefully
and herein give you our findings IN same.
The first thing named in said report is
CoUSTY ROADS.
They report that they have established seven
roads viz, Nos. AL 462. 463, 464, ass, 46e aud
467. We consider ii our duty tO examine mi
nutcly the proceedings Of the Commissioners IN
detail on one Of these roads To ascertain their
custom aud compare their dOngs in same with
requirements of the statute. For this purpose
we draw promiscuousy, or rather of lot, from
the files and found we had the proc sedngs on
road M. 464, In our examination of the same
W fhd that the petition therefor res not state
that the sgners thereto live in the vicinity OF
the proposed road as Is required by law. The
Com missioners, however, make finding that
the petitioners in fact do live in the vicinity, but
onlwhat evidence this fin ling is made, or that
there was any evidence produced to them on this
point does not appear. 10 fact, we are assured
no such evidence was before them on which to.
base such finding The bond filed is not con
ditiuned according TO law, nor does 1t bind the
signers to pay the cnsts and expenses in case
the proceedings shall not be finally Confirmed rs
il required by law. The bond is singned by one
II. N,t;s IL and IA lw
thereon as Is contemplated by the statute. But
the one name is signed tn II and that is the name
of petitioner. There is no notice filed with the
papers on record in the once Of the Auditor, nor
is there any proctor evidence that any such no
tice ever existed. There is no evidence that
auy notice was set up at the Auditors Office or
in the public places in the township. There is
no evidence that any notice was published in
auv newspae for any length Of time whatever,
aor Is there any written or printed notice ON hle
or found with the papers the law therefor re-
curing notice OF the object and PRAYER Of the
proposed petition, or that the same VIII be, at
day named, presented tD the Commissioners, and
that this notice should be set up ut the door OF
the Auditors Office, at three places in the town
shin and published four consecutive weeks in
a newspaper published Of general circulation
within the county, does not seem To have been
complied with and it seems to us that these no.
tces are indspensbly necessary IN order TO
confer Jurisdiction upon the board 10 the estab
lishment Of said road. We are at a loss to see
how any subsequent proceedings eau be deemed
valid: the Commissioners acted, in our judge
ment, without justice or authority OF law, and
their proceedings are void. Tne bond referred
tp seems to have been executed tit we. can call
the signing thereof by petitioner alone evecut-
ing iD June Q, 1869 long after the filing Of said
petition &C., yet its filing is dated back to Febru-
AIRY IL, 1868. The order given by the Commis-
soners TO the viewers has not been returned, we
cannot therefore determine the legality or ille-
gality of the same; in fact there is no evidence
on file or elsew here that any order was issued
TO viewers. The report on this road was made
by Smith, Iuman and Buler, Aug. IL, 1859.
Why these men make the report we are not ad-
vised, as there is nothing showing that any order
to view and report on same was served on them,
or placed in their possession, or any instructions
or orders whateSer given in that behalf. These
pers9ns do not show how much less valuable, IL
anv, the lands or premises from which such APP
preparation way be taken by the opening and
uctiOu of said road. The report is entire
ly silent on this point; the law, however. requires
a report to be made in this particular. 10 onr
| judgement, the proceedings in county road No.
I64 are exceedingly loose and vague and are
probably void. We have examined more or less
the proceedings touching the other county roads
numbered above, and we find like defects and
other defects as glaring. We regard the pro-
ceedings in road No. Asa as fair example OF
|
county road law during the year have been had.
We reccommel that for the expenses which have
| been paid out of the county treasury for the es-
| adjustment OF this and all other county roads,
where the proceedings are so maniiestiy void
the surities should be compelled to refnnd the
same. IL, however, the bonds accepted are so
manfestly worthless so that the same cannot be
prosecuted (as we regard the bond in 464) we
are at loss what course to suggest. Certainly
such carelessnesS in the management in the i'm
portaut matters of the county should IN some
way be corrected.
IMPRovMD ROADS.
The second item named in the Report Is the
Improved County Roads. They report that Gu
ring the year they have established four, viz
Nos. Is, Is, IL and Is. Inasnuch as on Ties,
improved roads the county issued bonds to pay
for all the expenses incurred in making same
and thereby becomes surty to the labUrer ant
holding for the entire ex xpendiure, which amount
this past year to great many thousand dollars
we deemed II our duty 10 make careful exam
nation Of all of them and report accordingly
We also find that petitions have been filed within
the year entered in the report for roads Nos. l9
20, 81 and %, which, although not confirmed
we have thought bOst to report them Tor reasons
hereafter to be giv.n.
IMPROVED ROAD NO. Is.
The petition DOES not show that the sgner
are lanlhOlders whnse land will be assesse
for the Improvements paid Tor; does not intglll
gibly state the kind of improvemenlj asked n
evidence T. show that they are majority of tb
Ian hoders whose land will be assessed &c
and is otherwise defective.
The bond Is also defective in the fOllOwin
particulars II is not conditioned for paymen
Of .the expense Of the preliminary survey if tn
said improvement shall not finally be ordered
dues not say that bOndsmen are responsible free
holders. In the body Of the bond there is II
names OF surities. The County Commissioner,
in their journal, appear to find that the bond
conditioned for the preliminary survey and re
, port if the improvement shall not finally be ol
dered, which is not according To f,ct. The pt
tiion being so ind6enits in this road No. 10, an
no law being referred To in it, we called Davi
Donaldson, the engineer on said road, who, aftt
, being duly sworn by J. w. Ross, Notary Public
, to give truthful answers to all questions aske
; him by the commission, said the proceeding
under petition for road No. Is were had undC
| the law Of March 29t 1887, and its amendments
This petition and bond not being auch as is .,
, qured by the law Of March 80, 1867, aud il
amendments, We much doubt whether tho pre-
ceedings can be considered legal. We furthe
: find that the notice to landowners for the pro
posed improvement, is not the same kind as tn;
+ asked for in the netitiOn. We also find thar th