The record-union., 1891-12-15
IRRIGATION BONDS.
Their Validity Sustained by the Su-
preme Court.
The Irrigation Act Is Constitutional
But There Were InformaIities in
the Case on Appeal.

The Supreme Court decision involving
the legality of the bonds of the MADEIRA
irrigation District was fled yesterday in
this city. The case is an important one,
and great interest has been manifested in
its outcome.
The Board of Directors of the MADEIRA
Irrigation District, on May 25, 1889, filed
In the Superior Court of Fresno County a
petition for the confirmation by that
court of their proceedings for the issue
and sale of certain bonds of the district,
amounting to $850,O0 In their petition
they alleged that ''said MADEIRA Irrigation
District was duly organized under the
laws of the State of California and espe-
Cially under the provisions of the Act, ap-
proved March 7, 1877 and set forth the
various steps taken by them in reference
TO the issue and sale of the bonds, and
prayed that the proceedings aforesaid
for the issue and sale of the bonds of said
district may be examined, approved and
confirmed by said court, and for all and
any legal and equitable relief which may
be provided by law and which the court
shall deem meet''
Notice was thereupon given by order of
the court that the hearing Of the petition
would be had July 5, 1882 and prior to
that day the appellants herein filed
answers thereto, showing that they were
owners of lands within the district to be
affected by said bonds, and specifically
denying the allegations in said petition.
At the hearing upon the issues pre-
sented by the answers of the appellants
the court rendered its judgment in favor
of the petitioners, and approved and con-
1irmed 1.-The legality and the validity of
al or n oil of inn for fhn
organization of MADEIRA Irrigation Dis
trict," and further adjudged and decreed
That leach and all Of the proceedings
taken to secure and provide for, and
authorizing the issue and sale of bonds of
the district in the sum of $S50,000, and
affecting the legality and validity of the
bonds, up to and including the resolu-
lions and orders of the Board of Directors
OF the district, made March I3, 1889, au-
thorizing the issuance and sale of said
bonds, be and the same are hereby ap-
proved and confirmed"
From this judgment an appeal has been
taken directly upon the judgment roll,
bringing here the proceedings at the trial
of the issues by a bill of exceptions. The
opinion rendered by the Supreme Court
IS one of the longest that has been filed
in many day. 1t orders that the judg-
ment be reversed, for the reason that an
error was made by the lower court in adj
uniting to be introduced in evidence the
record of the proceedings Of the Board of
Supervisors, which contained recitals
that petition had been presented, and
that before hearing said petition "evi-
dence to the satisfaction Of the board was
adduced by petitioners upon the queS-
lion whether or not there were fifty peti-
TONERS whose genuine signatures ap-
peared affixed to said petition who were
bona fide freeholders of lands within the
proposed boundaries of the irrigation dis
trict, whereupon the board, having an
nounced that they were satisfied that there
were fifty such freeholders, whose sig
natures appeared affixed to said petition,
proceeded TO hear the petition
The defendants objected to this evidence
on the grounds of immateriality, ir-
relevancy and incompetency. The OBJ
Jectlons were overruled and the defend
ants took an exception.
The petitioners then offered in evidence
document purportlng to be petition,
with the signatures of upward OF fifty
names attached. The defendants OBJ
jected to the introduction of this; the OBJ
lection was overruled, and the defendants
again excepted.
The Supreme Court says that in these
rulings the court erred. "There was no
proof" says the Supreme Court, ''that
the petition had been signed by either the
persons whose names were attached
thereto, or that either Of said persons was
boundaries designated in the petition.
Whether petition had been presented to
The Board of Supervisors of such char
acter as to give to that board jurisdiction
10 act in accordance with the provisions
of the law in question, was an issue be-
fore the court to be determined by COM
petent evidence. A declaration by the
Board of Supervisors that such petition
had been presented, even though such
declaration was spread upon their
records, was not competent evidence in
this proceeding, as it was only hearsay.
Nc board nor tribunal can obtain juris-
dlctlon by its own recital that it has
Jurisdiction.
"In its decree the court, after determin-
ing the legality and validity of the pro-
ceedingS, added thereto the following:
And it is further ordered, adjudged and
decreed that all persons, and each and
every person interested in the organiza-
lion of said irrigation district-save and
except the appellants herein-be forever
debarred and precluded from disputing,
denying or disclaiming any fact or facts
relating to the organization of said dis
trict, or providing for and authorizing the
issue and sale of the bonds Of said dis
Irict, which might by them have been
denied, questioned or disputed in this
proceeding
This portion Of the judgment was un-
authorized. The statute does not confer
upoh VIC Sou1b y any power VI yuflSulcllon
TO do more than examine and determine
the legality and validity of. and approve
and confirm the proceedings had under
the Act under which this district was
formed. The judgment
is reversed"
Justice Harrison wrote the opinion, and
The unusual length of the opinion was
due TO the fact that he dwelt very extend
edly on the question of the cOnsttu-
Jionality of the Act under which the dis
trict was formed. He holds that the Act
is constitutional, and his views are con-
Cured in by the other Justices.
The order Of the court below in deny
ing new trial is also reversed.
UNDER THE FLOWERS
The Grave Receives the EodY of the