The record-union., 1891-03-30

issuance and sale of bonds must be re-
ferred to the proceedings by which alone
such order is authorized, whether they
are expressly referred to or not.
The Superior Court did not err in refus-
ing to try the case de moro after the filing
of the amended petition. All the evil
dence that had been taken was applicable
to the issues formed by the amended
pleadings, and, indeed, the principal OBJ
ject and only effect of the amendments to
the petition were to make it conform to
the evidence already in. 1t would, there
fore, have been mere waste of time. as
well as most unusual practice, to have
introduced anew the evidence already be-
fore the court.
1t is contended that the Board of Direct
ors never had any authority to issue any
bonds of the district, because no legal no
tice was given of the special election at
which the proposition to issue bonds was
submitted to a vote of the electors.
The point of this objection is, that the
general notice prescribed by Section 5 of
the Wright Act Stats. 1887, p. 81 was not
posted i'll the office of the board. But this
was special election held under Section
10 OF the Act, page 35, and the notices pre-
scribed by that section were duly given.
As we construe the law, that section ap-
plies to such special elections, to the ex-
clusion of Section 5.
1t is contended thatithis Judgment can
not be sustained because the proceeding
was commenced before any bonds had
been issued. According to appellants
construction of the supplemental Act, no
proceeding can be commenced under il
until bonds have been actually issued.
There may be something in the literal
terms of the title and one or two clauses
OF the Act to countenance this construct
ion, but, read as whole, and with refer
ence to its manifest purpose and the evil
1t was intended to correct, it must be con-
strued as allowing the proceeding to be
commenced as soon as any resolution has
been adopted for the issue and sale of
bonds
Finally, it is contended by appellant
that the authority originally granted to
the directors to issue bonds to the amount
OF $500, 900. at a time when the district en-
braced 5000 acres, ended with the order
excluding $4,000 acres; for, he says, even
If the Legislature intended to bind the
new, or reconstructed, district by vote
OF the old district, the law to that extent
would be unconstitutional. Citing sections
IL and l3 OF Article XI. of the Constitution
OF California and Section 10, Article /. of
the Constitution of the United States.
If, after this district had actually in
CURED debt by the issuance of bonds, a
portion of the lands of the district had
been excluded without the consent of the
owners of the lands remaining, the argu-
ment of appellant on this point would
have had much force, and would at least
have been deserving OF serious consider
alton. But the facts being that at the
time of the exclusion of 2s,000 acres from
this district it had no debt, and that after
notice of the proceeding no objection was
made to such exclusion by any person,
there is no basis for any claim of injus-
tice or violation of constitutional rights.
The identity of the district was not de-
stroyed by the exclusion of part of it's
lands. Those who remain in the district
will receive all the benefits of the ex-
penditure of the proceeds of the bonds;
they will not be compelled to pay for
anything for the benefit of others. Nor is
there anything in the law to compel the
directors of the district, as reconstructed,