The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1889-08-30


on this question il would be removed
in this case, by the fac, that the Order
Of the Court to the Commissioners
expressly requires notice to be given.
The power Of the Court 10 make this
order cannot be questioned by the pc
iitiOners. It is their own proceeding
and the order was made at their in
stance and becomes q necessary part of
their proceedings. We therefore hold
that the notice in this case was
essential and that without it the report
Of the Commissioners could not be sus-
tanned.
We come then TO consider the next
whether a notice TO the in
habitanvs of the Commissioners Third
or Fourth meeting was required. II is
that the purpose Of the Third
meeting was 70 consider the evidence
in the case, and adopt report, there
fore no notice was necessary.
We would feel like sustaining this
view Of the case, if the Commissioners
had adopted any line which had been
proposed at any Of the previous meet
ings
We might then conclude that they
based their decision upon evidence
they had heard at these former meet
ings But, how can we so conclude,
when, they in fact adopt and determin-
cd at this third meeting upon line
about a mile OF there sbouts, still fur
ther West Of the line suggested at the
second meeting, and one, that was
never before proposed. So far as the
record in this case shows, the inhsbl-
tants never knew that the line adopted
had ever been suggested until, after
the Commissioners had run it out and
made their report to the Court. The
Commissioners are not only to inquire
into the propriety Of the division, but
if division be determined upon, it
must be made to suit the convenience
of the inhabitants Of the Township.
There may be little disputes on the
subject Of division, but where the line
shall be, may be the very question
which most seriously affects the inter.
ests Of the inhabitants. Therefore, be-
lore line is adopted, they should
have an opportunity Of being heard
on the question Of ITS adoption. What
was said by Kennedy J. 10 the case OF
Maccungie Township, 3rd Rswle 476,
in reference to the division of Town
ship, is applicable to the case before US.
He said inter ala, II then the inhabi-
tants of the Township have the right,
and must exercise it in the irst place,
of deciding whether their convenience
requires division of their Township,
or not, as il must be admitted l think
they have, it follows that they have a
right to decide where the line of divis-
ION shall be, if division be made at
all, because whether tleir convenience
shall in any degree be promoted By a
division of the Township may depend
in their opinion entirely, or at least
mainly, where the line Of division
shall be"
Had notice been given Of the third
meeting at which the line agreed up
on could have been discussed, it might
perhaps. have been unnecessary. 10 give
notice of the meeting at which the line
thus agreed on was run out But, as
no notice, was given of either Of these
meetings, the report OF the Commits
sioners must be set aside.
Exceptions have also been filed To
the bill Of cost ahd expenses in this
case. We think tho charges of the
Commissioners are reasonable. 1t
would seem from their report that they
had four meetings, and We may fairly
presume that they may havs spent some
additional time in preparing their re-
port, and making the plot or draft at
tached. We also see no improperly
10 ]. q Brown charging a part of his
time as Commissioner, and the other
portion OF his time, When 80 employed,
as surveyor. We dismiss the first and
second exceptions to the bill of costs
without further comment.
The third exception raises the
question whether the County is liable
to pay for the services of the peli-
TONERS counsel, and his necessary ex-
penses This item is claimed under
the provisions of the first section of
Act Of 1875 p. l. 20, which is as fol
lows. SIN all cases of the division, or
creation of Election Districts, by the
Court of Quarter Sessions of any Coun-
ty, in this Commonwealth, the said
Court shall order the costs and ex-
penses there of to be paid from the
Treasury of the proper County" DC.
The County is not a party to the
proceedings, but as elections are part
of the machinery of the Government
aud the public at large is interested in
them, as well as the locality which com
poses district, it seems TO be the poll
cy of the law that all expenses incur
red in holding and conducting the
elections, or in creating and forming
the Districts, should be paid out of the
County Treasury, which is common
fund raised by taxation of the inhlbi
tants of all the districts in the County.
The Act governing thls proceeding
does not provide for the payment of
any costs or expenses by the parties
litigant. The question before US is
not what is taxable as the costs or ex-
penses of the successful party. The
Act fixes the liability of the County to
pay all costs and expenses but does
not define what shall be considered as
legal costs and expenses in such pro.
ceedngs. 1t appears TO US, that IL 'oas
intended By Tie Legislature, Ma, 10
shOuld coUer all expenditures neces-
sarily incurred. 1t is plain that the
word COSTS alone, would include on
ly taxable costs, and as Attorney g
fees in Penna., are not taxable costs,
no such item could be allowed, if no
other term we're used in the Act. But
the Legislature saw fit to use in addi-
ton the word, Expense" Now,
while costs are expenses and these
terms are sometimes used as synony.
nous, yet strictly speaking, "Ex,
penses," is wider term than "Costs,
and usually includes much more. 1t
embraces generally, an expenditure or
outlay, while cos.s, are only such ex.
penses as are expressly allowed by posi-
tive law an made taxable as such.