Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-11-09
SUTTON VS sELECTMEN.
The Case Will Be Fought to q Finish F
 l

Both Sides.
 The hearing on the case of Sutton vs Selectmen of Waterbury was continued be- fore Judge Bradstreet ill the district court this morning. The statutes of Connecti- cut since 1743 were brought into play to show the different ways for providing for the repairs of towns highways by the general assembly.
 O'Neil for the plaintiff claimed that the action of the town in letting out the re- pairs of the roads by contract for a period of five years was illegal, the statutes pro vlding that contracts for one year only be made, unless the warning specified the length of time for which contracts would be let. It was found, however, that in at least one case the annual town meeting was properly called, and the five year con tracts were legal,
 The plaintiff also claimed that the select men had no authority over the highways. They were appointed hy the people and should do only what they were authorized to do. The statutes of 1851 provide that towns at their annual town meetings shall provide for the repair of highways for a period not exceeding five years. At town meeting in 1884 1t was voted to appoint superintendent of highways and bridges to hold office until January 1, 1SS9 Should the office become vacant the se- lectmen were empowered to fill the vacancy until the next annual town meeting when a successor would be appointed. Since the passage of the vote the first select man has acted as superintendent of highways.
 The defendants claimed that tow 4 meeting could not appoint a superin- tendent of highways except by ballot and also that in this particular case the warn ing was defective and the action of the meeting illegal. The only action the town meeting could take in the matter was either to accept or reject the recommendation of the selectmen. The defendants also claimed that, according to the vote of 1884 a super intendent of highways was appointed whose term would not expire until January 1, 1889, and therefore the vote appointing MT Sutton superintendent after October l., 1888, was illegal.
 In conclusion the defendants claimed that the plaintiff should have taken pro ceedings in quo warranto which he did not do. MT O'Neil claimed that his peti- tion was 6 hydra-headd monster, a man damus, quo warranto and injunction all in one.
 General Kellogg, for the defendants said that we have heard good deal about a public office being public trust. In this case he thought the people who engineered this job wanted to make a public office a private snap. General Kellogg claimed that by the vote of 1884 the instant the first selectman was elected he became superin- tendent of highways.
 In summing up for his side MT O'Neil said that prior to the year before last there never was over $6, ,000 expended upon the highways in one year. ''I say to you if MT Sutton takes care of these highways not over $7,000 will be expended Do you call that snap The selectmen want to expend $12, ,0O0! Evidently the selectmen did intendt to put up a job to be ap- pointed superintendent of ighways. Now MT Sutton had just the same right to put up job as the selectmen. He had more voters here than did the selectmen. That's all the difference there is."