Democratic Northwest and Henry County news. [volume] (Napoleon, O. [Ohio]) 1894-1905, 1895-07-04
AN OPINION
Which IL Carried Out by the
County Commissioners
Would Cripple Ditching in Hem
ry County to a Large
Extent.

Prosecuting Attorney Campbell
has given the following written opin-
ion to the County Commissioners.
The opinion recites that the COM
missioners, have no lawful right to
pay the petitioner or any other per-
SON for the serving of notices to land
owners who will be benefited by the
ditch improvement
NAPOLEON, o., June 90, 1895.
To the Board of Commissioners of
Henry County, Ohio :-GentLemen:
In reply to your inquiry as to pay
ment OF person for serving the no.
tices to land owners upon the filing
of the petition in the matter of To-
eating and constructing a county
ditch, | beg leave to report, that |
find no authority in law whatsoever
for the allowance and payment of the
petitioner or any other person for
the serving of said notices. Section
1906 of the statutes fixing the fees is
silent on the question and Section
4451 ''a' of the session laws of 1894,
VOL 81 says how such notices shall
be given. The person serving such
notice must serve the same without
compensation.
Yours truly,
w. w. CAMPBELL,
Prosecuting Attorney.
Section 4451a of the statutes reads
as follows
SEC. Asia. Said auditor shall
thereupon give notice to the COM
missioners of the fling of said petit
tion, together with copy thereof.
He shall fix a day for the hearing of
the same-not more than thirty days
from the date of said notice. He
shall prepare and deliver to, said pc
titioners, or any one of them, q no.
tice in writing, directed to the lot or
land owners and to the corporations
either public or private affected by
said Improvement, setting forth the
substance, tendency and prayer of
such petition, copy of which notice
shall be served upon each lot or land
owner or left at his or her usual place
of residence, and upon an officer or
agent of each public or private cor
poration having its place of business
in the county, at least fifteen days
before the day set for hearing, and
the person who serves such notices
shall make return on the notice, un-
der oath, of the time and manner OF
service and file the same with said
auditor on or before that day. Said
auditor shall, at the same time, give
a like notice to each nonresident lot
or land owner by publication in a
newspaper, printed and of general
circulation in the county, at least
two weeks before the day set fol
hearing, which notice shall be veri
fed by affidavit of the printer, OF
other person knowing the fact, and
| filed with said auditor ON or before
that day, and no further notice oil
said petition or the proceedings had
under the same shall thereafter be
required.
The opinion held by Prosecuting
Attorney Campbell may be right, but
it certainly is not just. 1t is true this
/ action of the statute does not pro
vide for payment of the labor of serv
| ing notices, neither does it do so fol
the payment of the printer for serv.
ing notice upon non-residents. The
law makes it the duty of the Auditor
to have these notices served, both te
resident and nonresident land own
ers, and as the laborer is worthy Of
his hire it is supposed that the work
is to be paid for. Not by the county
but apportioned to those benefited
by the Improvement. 1t would moi
be just to make the petitioner pay
for this work, either for serving the
notice upon resident land owners Oh
for the publication of the notice tc
non-residents. IL this was imposed
upon the petitioner by the county
commissioners, many necessary ditcf
improvements would never be made
1t would be serious drawback tt
ditch making in our county, there
fore an injury to farmers and lanC
owners generally.
We are not advised as to the cours,
our commissioners will take in th,
matter, but they should considel
well before enforcing the opinion
of their legal advisor.
1 l-----------------------