The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1884-01-25

ample laying out highway or street, reg
ularly within the jurisdiction of the town
or its officers, and where the entry of re-
cord is made in pursuance of law" Dill
lon Nun. Corp. 2 Ed $685. The same learned
author says "Parol evidence in collateral
"action cannot be received to contradict the
''records Of a public corporation required
"by law to be kept in writing, or to show
"a mistake in the matters as therein re-
"corded" ibid Sec. 1856. School District vs..
Atherton 12 Mel. 1906 The case of Nor
rison Admir- vs.. City of Lawrence 9S Mass.
221 is in point and we quote at some length
from the opinion of the court: "The only
''authority conferred on city by which
''it can legally appropriate money to cele-
"brate holiday. is found in st. 1851, C.
"165 1t can be exercised only in
pursuance of "a vote OF two.thirds of the
members of each branch of the
"City Council present and voting by yea
"and nay vote There was no competent
"evidence on trial Of this case that the city
"of Lawrence had duly exercised any au-
"thority under this statute for the celebra-
"tion of the Fourth of July when the plain
tiff was injured; or that any one was
"duly empowered to purchase fire-works,in
"behalf of the city to be used in such cele.
"bration. The only competent evidence
"of any such authority is to be found in
"the record of the proceedings of the City
Council kept according to the provisions
"of law. BY the act it is ex-
''pressly provided that each board COM
''posing the City Council shall keep
"record of its own proceedings and that
"city clerk shall be chosen who shall be
'the clerk of the board of aldermen.
"Parol evidence was inadmissible to prove
any acts or proceedings of the city council
or that the record Of such proceedings as
kept by the clerk WAS erroneous or defec-
tive." (See also Mayhem VS.. Gsyhead 13
Allen 1897
Now, whether our courts would go to the
extent OF deciding that the corporation
could set up against a third person or to af-
feet rights which might have attached on
the faith Of the action Of the corporate Of
ficers, a failure on their part to comply
with their own by laws We are not prepar-
ed to affirm. Other principles would then
be involved which might affect the ques-
ton. But after careful consideration and
examination of the authorities, we are
clear that the corporate officers themselves
may be restrained from proceeding to in
cur debt for public improvement of this
nature where their official record shows on
its face that their action will be in contro-
vention of the same. There is no hardship
in such ruling of which they can com.
plain; for this leaves the general subject
within their control, and the authority to
correct their record, if it is erroneous, is
with them and not with the court. Taking
bylaws " and V together we conclude
that in proceeding of this nature the
minutes should show-the yeas and nays
having been called-four affirmative votes,
and that, as they now stand, the injunc-
ton should for the present be continued.
w. A further objection urged by the
plaintiffs is, that, as a meeting intervened
between the adoption of the original reso-
luton (Nov. 27th,) and the adoption of the
present change in the same, the action of
the Council was in violation of bylaw vi.
In this we cannot concur. Surely that by
law was not intended to tie the hands OF
the Council for all time, and to prevent 1t
from repeating an ordinance, or adopting
another in its stead even though a meeting
may have intervened. This, as we view it,
was not reconsideration of former or
der, vote, or resolution, but an indepen-
dent act or resolution as much as if the
Council had repealed the former ordinance
or adopted an entirely new route.
V. Assuming that by the construction
of the sewer over the proposed route the
debt will be increased to the amount COW
cred in the bill, we are still unable 10 con.
clude, from the evidence now before us,
that the resolution is invalid on that nc.
count, According TO the report of the
committee made June 9Th, 1885, two per cen.
fun, Of the last assessed value OF the taxable
property of the town is..........SlG,1 $50. OF
| The present debt is. SIG, l95 2l
| The debt in 1874 was 80, So S5,327. 81
" " "
SlO, ,S02 "
We assume from This report that The
amount of existing Indebtedness incurred
since the adoption of the constitution ant
the present proposed increase in the samC
taken together will not exceed two per cen
htnl of the last assessed valuation. II so
then the case is within the ruling in Pike
Co. VS. Rowland 10 Nor. 23S, If we are in