The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1894-04-11
WIDENING OF FOREST AVENUE,
A Move Which May Postpone the Improve
meuts Asked For-The Work Said to Be-
long to Deering and Not to the County.

ments Asked For-Ihe Work Said to Be-
| long to Deering and Not to the County.
A document was filed in the Supreme
court yesterday, which may postpone
for long time the proposed widening OF
Forest Avenue. 1t will be remembered
that the first petition for this widening,
made two years ago by the Deering city
government, was denied by the County
Commissioners. An appeal to the Supreme
Court was taken and commission COM
posed of Messrs. AT. Moulton, J. b.
Blabon and E. B. Mallet was appointed to
hear and report upon the case. They re-
ported in favor of widening of twenty
feet and further laid out the metes
and bounds, filing plan with their re-
| port.
This report has not yet been accepted,
and Judge Haskell is expected to decide
| this question of acceptance at this term.
Thereupon the county commissioners
take exceptions to the acceptance OF this
| report, in the following document filed
| yesterday.
STATE OF MAINE.
| Cum berland IS.
| Supreme Judicial Court.
City of Deering appellant from county
commissioners upon refusal to make al
iteration and widen Forest Avenue.
And now on the first day OF the term
| comes the County of Cumberland, and
objects to the acceptance by this Court
| of the report of the committee appointed
to consider the appeal OF the City Of
| Deering from the decision of the Board
of the County Commissioners of Cum
bertrand County. refusing to alter or widen
| Forest Avenue for the following reasons:
| First, that Forest Avenue, the altera-
| ton or widening of which is prayed for
| in the petition of the City CT Deering,
and the alteration or widening whereof
| is ordered in the report of said commit
tee, is located wholly within the cor
porate limits OF said City of Deerlng,
and that the Board Of County Commits
sioners of Cumberland County have by
law no jurisdiction over said Forest
| Avenue but that the exclusive jurisdic-
ton over said Forest Avenue is by law
vested in the City Council of the City
| of Deering.
Second, that the petition of the City
| of Deering to the Board of County Com
missioners Of said County of Cumber-
| land is uncertain, indefinite and defec-
tive in not specifying i'll any respect the
| character of the alteration or widening
of said Forest Avenue.s prayed for in
| said petition, and no valid alteration or
| widening of said Forest Avenue can pe
| made BY the said Board of County Com
missioners on said petition, and said
| committee can give no valid order and
| direction to alter or widen said Forest
| Avenue to said Board of County Com
| missioners on said petition, and said
committee can give no valid order and
direction to alter or'widen said Forest
| Avenue to said Board of County Com
missioners on said petition.
Third, that the committee appointed
to consider the appeal of the petitioners
| had no legal authority to determine the
amount of the alteration or widening
of said Forest Avenue, nor to determine
| the metes and bounds in accordance
with which said Forest Avenue should
| be altered or widened.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND,
| BY Charles A. True,
Its Attorney.
| 1t has not yet been decided when the
case will be heard.
| Tt is understood that some delicate law
points are involved. Sec.1 of Chap. IS
| of the Revised Statutes of 1888 declares:
County Commissioners may lay out,
alter or discontinue highways leading
from town to town. and grade hills in
any such highway. Nothing in any
| city charter shall be SO construed as to
deprive them of the power to lay out,
alter or discontinue county roads with
| in the limits thereof etc. But the
| city charter of t9Deering, which was
| passed in 1889 declares: "The city coun-
| Gil (of Deering) shall have exclusive au-
| thority to lay out, widen or otherwise
| alter, or discontinue any and all streets
or public ways in said CITY," Now the
question arises whether the later law
supersedes the former. The later is a
private act and the earlier is public
law. Which takes precedence?
! Besides this delicate point there are
two others mentioned in the document
filed yesterday.
| 1t is probable that the case will ulti-
| mately have TO go to the law court for
final decision. The law court does not
meet until July, so that the prospect of
securing the widening this summer is
|