Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-07-11
INJUNCTION MAS REFUSED.
COUNTY COURT MAY IMPROVE JUDGE
CHRISTIANS FARM.
Judge Gates Decides There Is No Nio-
IatiOn of the La0-PrOtestins
Taxpayers Didn't show How
Much Taxes They Paid.

Judge Gates yesterday decided that the
county court had the right to improve the
Chrisman road between Lees Summit and
Independence. This road runs past County
Judge Chrisman's farm, and the taxpayers
on the so-called main road protested
against improving Judge Chrisman's farm
at the expense of the county and DETECTING
the road so as to abandon what they called
the main road. They claimed it would cost
several thousand dollars more to thus de-
fleet the road than If the main line were
adhered TO. and they brought injunction
proceedings TO stop the Improvement OF the
Chrisman road. Judge Cats denied the in
junction yesterday in a long opinion Of
which the following is an outline;
The authority to establish, open, improve,
chang and Vacate the public roads of the
county is vested in the county court ex-
clusively, though the circuit court has SUI
pervisory control over the county court
This control, however. should be very spar
ingly exercised, and only when there is A
plain abuse of the wide discretion of the
county court. The anti-Chrisman taxpay-
ers allege that the Improvement of the
ChrismaH road would be a waste OF public
money. They also allege that they live on
another road, and would be damaged by
the Improvement Of the Chrisman road. But
they do not show that they would receive
a special injury or damage which Is not
sustained by the public at large. Ordinarily
a citizen or taxpayer cannot maintain an
action for an injunction on account of any
threatened injury if such injury is the same
in kind as that which would be sustained
by the public at large. But an exception
has been made in this state in cases where
an unlawful or wasteful expenditure OF
public money is threatened by public Off
cials. The latest decision of the supreme
court says that the taxpayer so protesting
must show the amount of taxes he pays
This the anti-Chrisman taxpayers have not
done. On this technicality the court denied
the writ. but took occasion to pass upon
the merits OF the case. The main Conten-
ton Of the plaintiffs is that the Chrisman
road was never legally established. If
its Improvement would be illegal.
All the owners of the road have, since the
order to open II, given a right OF way, and
this disposes of all contentious as to the
that though the statute relating TO roads
declares no road shall be opened except
according to the provisions of that statute.
yet there are three ways Of opening a road:
First. under the statute; second, by public
use. for ten years, and third, by dedication.
Judge Gates held that the granting OF the
right of way was a dedication and the
county court accepted the dedication May
..
The plaintiffs contended that the dram
shop law requires that the dramshop fund
should be expended on main lines Of road
which lead to the most important towns in
the county in proportion to the utility OF
such road. Judge Gates held that this does
mean a main road between two i'm
portant towns, but a main road, one term
of which should lead to an important
town. As to what is a main line Of road,
is very much within the discretion of the
parent violation of the law the circuit court
will not interfere. The evidence does not
show such an abuse of power.
AS to the right Of Judge Chrisman to vote
for the Improvement of his own property
the court does not express an opinion, as
neither side refers to IL in briefs.