The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1880-09-17
CHARGE OF THE COURT.


If they neglect this duty, they are liable to in
dictment tor misdemednor, the object being
sometimes (as apparently in this case) not 20
much to punish The officer al to ascertain and
permanently establish facts aud rights in dis
puted matter.
The citizens in the immediate vicinity Of the
roads described in this indictment insist that
some share of the township taxcs shall be APP
pied to puting those roads in proper condition., 1
which they allege has not been done. On the
oher hand, the residents of the township out
side of the village seem to think that the vii
layers are extravagant in their demand and
ought TO take care OF their streets at their own
expense.
You are not to take sides in this controversy.
The village should not ask more attention TO its
streets than properly belongs to them, but a
hickly sottel place may need more and per.
haps better settled streets than a rural district
does, and, IL its streets are legal highways it is
entitled to have them opened and maintained.
The first question in the case, therefore, is
whether the streets in regard to the coalition
of which complaint is made are highways for,
II they are not, then the township officers have
no right to expend the public money upon
them.
An owner Of land may give portion to the
public for n road which, if accepted and used
by them, becomes highway by dedication, A
road used as public thoroughfire for twenty
one years becomes highway by prescription
Al, 4 g l., III,
way Is by view appointed by the court, but
there ia still another way, and that is by an Act
of As emily Formerly, many highways we're
erected in that way, stite-roads az they were
called. The State has, in all the land Of the
Commonwealth, sovereign right TO take pr-
vate property upon due Compensatory for
public use, called the right of eminent domain,
and, whenever an act of assembly di ects that
a particular road shall be recognized as pub
lie way, it becomes highway and remains
highway until the act be repealed or the road
vacatel by competent All ,hority,
These being the general principles, their ap-
plication to the present case is not difficult.
On March 81 1886, the legislature passed
law, which was approved by the Governor and
found its way on the salute book, declaring
Third and Fourth streets in the town of NIiflin
burg (now called Mitflinville) in Columbia
county, public highways, to be opened and
maintained as other highways of the Common
wealth.
1t is forty -four years since the passage of that
law and the streets designated Third and Fourth
have been known and used as such during all
that period. The length of time has been sutf.
cient of ITSELF without an act of assembly, to
make these two streets public highways by pre-
scrption. They had their origin, probably, in
some laying ont of the town before the act of
1896, of which plot or plan we have no special
evidence, excepta map of 1898, showing the
fact that town had been laid out Adopting
the plan Of that town, the Legislature said that
the streets therein laid out should be public
highways. They have been so used from that
time down. We therefore have no hesitancy
in saying to you that Third and Fourth streets
in the town of Millinvlle are public highways,
The next question is whether the defendants
here have neglected their duty to keep these
streets Tor either Of them in reasonably good
repair.
road may be laid out two rods W ide, but it
is not customary to make the road in all places
80 that every foot of the two rods wide can be
travelled, but the road must be so made that at
any point and all points il can be safely passed
over by night as well as by day. A road in
town or city may require a larger outlay than a
country road.
In this case, from 1886, to the time of this
complaint nothing had been done by the su-
pervisors to these roads, except to throw out
the stones. For this neglect on the part of their
predecessors, the present supervisors are not
responsible, but did they, from the time they
were inducted into office down to the time Of
the bringing OF this complaint certified by the
constable, do all that in reason they ought to
have done? Did they exercise sound dscre'
ton in leaving things in the condition in which
they were left? Was the flooding of those streets
such thing as they were justified in permitting?
Was the expense of putting them in order so
great that they ought not TO have incurred it,
Was the accumulation of water about
,he school house such as should have attracted
their attention and should have been guarded
against? In short were the circumstances such
as requr red something 10 be done, or were they
not?
A street that few people use may be lett in
different condition from one that is travelled by
the public generally, Nevertheless, if it is
public highway the supervisors are bound to
keep it in repair, and if the water can be
;ol fr,h, II
for you to say whether that ought not to be
done for the convenience and health Of the
community. If all has been done on the streets
that the township ought to do, then OF course
the de PENDANTS are not guilty If one has been
negligent and the other not, you may find one
guilty and the other not guilty. Supervisors are
supposed to know about the condition of the
roads in their charge; at all events they
should form themselves. There being no in
dividual prosecutor in this case if you acquit
the county must pay the costs, unless you I'M
pose them upon the defendants one or both.
If you convic both or either of them you have
nothing to do with the costs.
The ven let was guilty in manner and form
as they stand indicted,
SENTENCE,
In the sentence the Court reaiiirmed the doc
trine of thu charge, and said that supervisors
could not by any arrangement for division of
roads between themselves shirk accountability,
but that each is responsible for the whole terri
tory for the supervision Of which he was elected,
and is bound to open and work all lawful high
ways no matter how much previously neglected,
In view of all the circums tances of this case,
the Court imposed fine of only one dollar
each, and the costs
Agents aud Canvassers make from $25 to
$50 per week selling goods for f. G. Ride
out & Co., 10 Barclay street, New York. Send
for their catalogue and terms. epic, ,'8O-ly |