The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-09-03

COMMISSIONERS again agreed 10 Jne pro-
position and passed the necessary Leg
islation preliminary to letting the con-
tract At their direction, Auditor Reed
advertised for bids for the work, said
bids to be opened on Friday, August 80.
1t was understood that the electric
company was to bid so low for the work
that no other contractor would have q
chance to get the work of grading the
hills.
The grounds upon which the injunc-
tion was granted are set forth in the
petition filed in the case by the prosecu-
tor, which is as follows:
THE PETITION.
= The state of Ohio, plaintiff, VS.. Levi
Johnson, Richard b. Crawford and j. B.
Summer, defendants.
Now comes the prosecuting attorney
on behalf of the state of Ohio, and
states and represents to the court that
the above-named defendants are the
duly qualified and acting members of
the board OF county commissioners in
and for Stark county, Ohio, and were
during all the time hereinafter re-
ferred to.
For first cause of action, plaintiff
says that on or about the 7th day of
August, 1901, the aforesaid board of
county commissioners passed resolu-
tion which provided in substance that
grade be established on the road lead
ing from Greentown to Uniontown in
said county Of Stark, known as the Can
ton and Akron road, in accordance with
which certain survey and profile were
g
veyor, and that the grade of said road,
In accordance with said survey should
pe SO made, and that so per cent. of the
damages, costs and expenses of said
Improvement should be paid by the
property owners abutting upon said
part OF said highway intended to be
graded, and that the remaining so per
cent, be paid out of the county treasury
OF Stark county, out of the fund known
as the state and county road and i'm
provement fund.
plaintiff further says that section
1884 of the revised statutes of Ohio
provides In substance that the county
commissioners shall not pass any reso.
luton or order for the approximation
or expenditure of money unless the
auditor shall first certify that the
money required for such appropriation
Is in the treasury to the credit of the
fund from which it Is to be drawn, or
has been levied and placed upon the
duplicate and is in process of collec-
tion and not appropriated to any other
purpose.
Plaintiff further says that William
M. Reed, auditor of Stark county, and
by virtue of his office clerk of said
board of county commissioners. did
not furnish said certificate, nor in fact
could he according to law, for the rea-
son that the fund called the state and
county road Improvement fund con.
tains no money, nor is there any in
process of collection, nor will there
be until after the first day of October,
1901.
Plaintiff further says that in pursu.
ance OF the premises set out in the
resolution set out by said board of
county commissioners, on the 7th day
of August the said board directed the
county auditor to advertise, which bids
and that he so advertised, which bids
will be opened August 30, 1901, when
said commissioners propose and
threaten to enter into a contract for
the grading of the road, and to con-
tract to pay for one-half the cost of
the same out of the state and county
road Improvement fund, which con.
tains no money and which is not yet
in process of collection.
Second cause of action--Plaintiff
states that heretofore, on OF about the
26th day of November. 1900, the board
of county commissioners granted
Thomas l.. Childs. his heirs, success.
sors or assigns. right of way for an
electric railway between the cities of
Canton, Stark county, and Akron, Sum