The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1889-08-30
DIVIDING AN ELECTION DISTRICT.
oPisIoS OF JUDGE METzGER IN THE
GREENWOOD TOWNSHIP CASE.

wood Township Tor division INTO Two
election districts is the first case under
the Act Of 1876 in this county where
there has been a contest, the opinlo
OF Judge Metzger will be found OF
public interest, as setting forth the
method OF pfoce ,dure in such csses
Under his ruling, notice must be given
OF every meeting by the Commissioners.
and the residents must be heard upon
the division line which the viewers
propose 10 lay out. The Act of As.
sembly does not require that any notice
whatever shall be given. 1t would
seem that the viewers must continue TO
meet and give notice, until they make
a line that all are satisfi ID with, which
in case OF contest will render the
proceeding lengthy, and expensive.
Below is the opinion in full :
OPINION
This is'a proceeding under the Act
Of May 18th 1876 =. L. 17s TO divide
the Township Of Greenwood into two
Election Districts, 80 as TO suit the con-
venience Of the inhabitants thereof.
The petition for this purpose was
presented to the Court of Quarter Ses-
sions of said County Of Columbia and
on lhe 10th day of February 1888
Commissioners were appointed to in
quire into tho propriety OF granting
the prayer Of petition. They reported
in favor Of dividing said Township in
10 two Election Districts, and on the
~ hnfr
was confirmed Nlsi, by said Court.
On the 28th day of November A.
ID. 1888, exceptions TO this report
were filed by certain inhabitants of
Greenwood Township. These excep.
tions are six in number but it is al
mitted that the only ones worth dis
cussing are Second, Third, and Fourth
which are as follows 2nd. 'The Com
missioners under the amended petition
of May IA. 1888, proceeded to meet
and make division line dividing the
Election District without complying
with the Order of Court
3rd. "No notice Of the time and
place Of meeting was given the inhab,
tants Of the Township after May ID.
1888, by the commissioners, nor any
one else
4tb. "The inhabitants OF the Town
ship bad no notice of meeting Of the
Commissioners July 10. 1888, and Aug
ust Is. 1888, at which last meeting,
the division line was agreed upon and
run dividing said Township into two
Election Districts, and at which two
meetings they discharged their duties
in an illegal manner
1t appears from the record in this
case, and the facts admitted that the
Commissioners were directed by the
Order of the Court, to give five days
notice, by at least six handbills written,
or printed and posted up in public
places in said Township, of the time
and place Of meeting, for the purpose
of discharging tie duties of their ap-
pointment that they first met on the
22nd OF March 1888, at the Hotel in Mill
vile, and that notice of this meeting
had been given according to law
that after hearing testimony for and
against division, the Commissioners
adjourned-that they met again on the
4th day of May 1888, after giving five
days notice az required, and resumed
their Investigations Notice having
in the me ,ntime been given that an
application would be made 20 the next
Court of Quavter Sessions by the peti
tioners, fer an amendment to the order,
the Commissioners again adjourned
after receiving petitions, and remon.
strances from the Citizens Of the Dis
trict. That at both these meetings
different lines were proposed and dis.
cussed pro and con, but no line was
agreed upon by the Commissioners
upon either of said days.
On the 14th day Of May A. d. 1888,
petition was filed amending the
original petition which reads as fol.
lows: The polling place in one TO be
located at Millville, and in the other at
Rohrsbure, shall be changed to read
One Of which said polling places shall
be located at MIllville, and the other
wherever the Commissioners may de
termine.
The Commissioners again met on
the 10Th day of July 1883, at Blooms
burg, without having given any notice
to the inhabitants, and which conse
quently was not attended by any OF
the Citizens Of said Township.
At this meeting, the matter of the
division was talked over and consider
ed by the Commissioners, aud the di-
vision line as reported, being one
about mile or there about still further
West of the line suggested at the sec.
ond meeting, and never before propos-
ed, was then and there adopted and
determined upon, this meeting was for
the purpose of considering the evi-
dence in the case, and determining up-
on report.
That the Commissioners met again
Aug. Is, 1883, at Eyers- Grove for the
purpose Of running out the line adopt
ed at the former meeting and the line
as reported by them was actually run
out on that day. No notice of this
meeting was given 10 any Of the in
habtsnts of the Township and no dis
cussion of said line by citizens of the
Township took place either at this, or
the previous meeting Of July 10, 1888,
The soundness of the exceptions in
this case depends on two questions.
First, whether, in this proceeding
notice TO the inhabitants OF the Town,
ship is necessary, and Secondly, if
necessary whether the notice given Of
the first and second meetings of the
Commissioner, is sufficient, or wheth-
er notice should also be given of the
3rd a. 4lh meetings or both of them.
The Act of Assembly under which
this proceeding is brought does not in
express terms require notice 10 be Civ.
en-, TO the inhabitants but that such
notice should be given, is clearly i'm
piled from the language used, and the
purpose Of the Act The division y