The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1881-09-22

8Iut appears DelnS peTIeCteO III DOtl CdSci
3they both came on for trial in the Distrit
Court, at its late term, and, as stated b
you in your article, the first case wassdt
ceded in favor of defendants. But tn
second las was dismissed at the cost {
the defendants. In dismissing the sec
ond cas at defendants cost the Distric
Judges remarked that the parties favor
ling the road, Fought to have stood b
the petition as presented at the time tn
first order vas made"
We would have had no complaint t
make against Mr.. Harshmanhad he don
as he stated he would do after the frs
case was decided-let Mr.. Wyatt and tn
other petitioners for the road carry o.
the fight themselves but when We foun'
him acting, as. we thought, in the inter
lest of the party desiring the road, an,
helping them in their schemes to accom-
plish their purposes, as described above
we do not believe he is the right man 70
Commissioner likely to give a fair shoy
Ito both sides of a question.
Mr.. Harshman may deny that he act
led unfairly in the matter of these deeds
and this second order, and this secont
case, but the appearances are agains
him. Thus it appears BY, the minutes Q
THE Commissioners Of Sept. Is, 1880, tina
they did not do a single item of other bu
siness, up to 80 o'clock that day; tina
they Immediately thereafter adjournet
Ito view a ditch. 1t also appears tina
they waited up to that time until the par
ties should finish getting up these deeds
lin the back room of the Auditors office
and it further appears that when counse
flor the defendants advised, as we be
!lieve, that it would be better and more
favorable for the road to change the. fiji
ling endorsed on the petition and the EN-
TRY referring to it, as aforesaid, Mr.. II
did not hesitate to order it done, thus
|marring the records, and leaving it to be
proved what was on the records before.
All this satisfies us that Mr.. III. is not the
man for Commissioner that he is not
the man to do equal and exact justice
between parties having a~controversy be-
fore the Board.
As to our good faith in taking the first
to the Supreme Court without Civ
a ~supersedeas bond, we are content
to let the people decide. If Mr.. Wyatt
he had a majority of the resident
land owners on his petition, he may, II
he can convince the present Board that
It is safe for them to proceed, go ahead
and make the road, and then if the SUI
preme Court decide that there was not a
majority. and the Commissioners acted
without Jurisdiction, We shall see who is
pay for it. 5ei
All we. want in the matter is a fair
count, and that, we trust we shall Sc
cure. q a;as EPHRAIM COOK
We have made inquiry of those who
Know the facts in relation to the action
If the Commissioner in the Wyatt Road,
md feel that it is fair and proper that the
iollowing statement should go along with
he communication of Mr.. Ephraim Cook,
to-day's paper. We supposed that
he case we gave in last weeks paper
contained all that the public were inter
ssted in, but we are glad the opponents
Of the road have attempted.to bring out
The balance of the proceedings, as it
shows the smallness of their claim, and
the spirit of vindictiye opposition to i'm
provements, much better than it could
be shown any other way.
Now for the facts. When the Common
Pleas Court granted the perpetual in
in the first case, a question arose
as to the effect of the Injunction. The
counsel for the opponents of the road
that the injunction tied up the
CASE, so that if the friends Of the
road desired to proceed. further, they
would have to commence proceedings
again and do the whole matter over
The COUNSEL for the Commissioners in
structed them that the injunction only
tied up the ORDER made by the Commits
in granting the Improvement and
their subsequent proceedings thereon,
and that the original petition filed before
the Commissioners still remained on file
and new names might be added to it,
until a majority of the land owners had
it, when the County Commission
ers might make ANOTHER oRDRR andlaw-
fully. order the improvement to be made.
This was the: counsel given the Commits
sioners by their attorney, and also by
the attorneys of the. friends of the road,
and among these attorneys was Thomas
Milliken, Esq, whose distinguished legal
abilities no one will question. The
counsel for the opponents of the road
seemed to have entertained the same
view of the law, because after the in
junction was made perpetual they pro
cured some of the signers of the original
petition before observation-disclosures te
have their names erased from it, (they
having been persuaded in the meantime
to go back on the improvement,) which
they would not have done, had they be.
that the injunction effectually tied
up the entire case.es ST la f
Under this legal advice the Commits
acted, and new names,w per
United to be added to the petition on file
them-and new names were thu
until a majority of the land own
|ers, whose lands were assessed for The
had signed it, when the,
again made an order, granting the i'm
|provement. Now here comes in the mat
tier that makes the antiimprovemen
men so peculiarly frantic. 1t appear
that after the Injunction was made per
|petual, some of the friends of the roat
made deeds in good faith to their mar
ried children and other relatives, there
by making new land owners. These new
land owners at once signed the petition
before the Commissioners, thereby max
ing a majority in favor of the road. Til
question then arose before the Commits
|sioners, are these new land holders quail
lifted voters? The Commissioners wer
INSTRUCTED by their counsel that the.
were lawful voters, and the Commission
ers all believed and agreed among them
selves that they were legal voters, an
they counted them as such and ordere'
the improvement.
The opponents of the road then filed
second petition in the Common Plea
Court, setting out all the facts above de
4+o;1oI oDl oHorop~ +Io Co,,oo