Connecticut western news., 1891-07-09
THE COUNTY HOME MATTER.
Judge Robinson's Decision-The In-
 junction Dissolved.

Judge Robinson's Decision-The In-
 junction Dissolved.
 From the Winsted Citizen, July B.
 The questions in this case arise upon the motion to disolve temporary in- junction, and the principal question is whether the county commissioners have exceeded their powers under the statute?
 That statute, Section 3655, seems to be imperative as to the matter of provi. ding, for a certain class of children, places of refuge to be known as tempo rary homes." This section provides that ''there shall be provided in each county, one or more places of refuge to be known as temporary homes." The next section provides for the constitu- ton of board of managers of which the county commissioners are to be a part. The unqualified power and authority are given to this board of managers by this section to locate 8 home. They may place it at such point in tle county as, using their discretion seems wise and prudent. This same section also provides that the county commissioners may lease, purchase, hold, sell and convey real and personal estate for the purpose of such temporary home or homes. The county commissioners are given very wide and liberal powers and authority. There is no limitation whatever except that the purchasing, leasing, holding, selling or conveying shall be for the purposes of the tempo rary home or homes.
 The testimony offered upon the hear ing on this motion to dissolve, discloses that the proposed purchase of real estate complained of in the plaintiffs complaint is for the purpose of temporary home under this section. This fact is not con- troverted by the plaintiff So far, then, there Is nothing to indicate that the county commissioners have, in any re- spect exceeded their power and author ity; they simply propose to exercise their power to purchase real estate and personal property-to provide tempo rary home and to furnish its interior.
 It will be observed that the law per- mits these commissioners to make pur- chases, not only for one temporary home in the county, but for more than one, if they deem such a course necessary. The whole matter seems to be left by the statute entirely to the discretion aud judgment of the board of managers as to the number of homes in each county, and the points of location. The author, ity to purchase is placed by the statute entirely in the hands of tine county com- missioners of each county; but it is said that the proposed action of these county commissioners is illegal because no ap- propriation has yet been asked for by them for this purpose, and none has been made by the county representa- tives and senators. Now, is the author ity to purchase dependent upon a pre- vious appropriation? The authority given in the statute Is not expressly limited by this failure to appropriate or by the absence of appropriation.
 Then the question arises-Is there no implication of limitation of authority and right to purchase arising out of this absence of specific appropriation? Was it ever intended or expected by the legislature that the county commission CTS were to be powerless in this matter until they had asked for and obtained an appropriation? This latter seems hardly possible. Suppose these county commissioners and their associates on this board of managers had presented .u estimate of the expenses of the tenn uorsry home for the year, and the county r,,nresentatives and senators had abso- Intelv refused to make an appropriation for t6is home under Section 3662 Ac- aord;no to the claims of the pla1utitf, the county commissioners and the board of m.na9ers of this temporary home