The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-10-23
BUNC0M9E BONDS
LEGALLY PASSED
Supreme Court Decides in
Favor of Issue.
THE PLAINTIFFS MISTAKE
Admitted That the County's Expenses
Were Necessary.
TO BUILD COURT HOUSE AND FLOAT DEBT
THE PLAINTIFFS MISTAKE
TO BUILD COURT HOUSE AND FLOAT DEBT
The Supreme Court Decides in Favor OF County
Commissions and Against Black. Not
Necessary That the Act Pas; its
First Reading.

The Supreme Court yesterday affirmed
authorizing the commissioners of that
county to rtceed with the sac c. the
500, 900 bond issue. which WAS authorized
by the Legislature.
1t is victory for the County Commits
sioners of Buncombe, who will at once sell
the bonds, $50, 900 of which are to meet
the floating Indebtedness of the county
and the other $4,000 to be used for the
erection of a new court house.
The action was brought by w. p. Black,
of Buncombe. who secured temporary
Injunction restraining the commissioners
from issuing the bonds. This injunction
was dissolved by Judge Moore in the Su-
perior Court Of Buncombe and the case
then went to the Supreme Court on APP
peal.
Black maintained that the act author
izing the bond issue is unconstitutional
because the journal of the House did not
show that it received yea and nay vote
on the first reading The Supreme Court
held that this was not necessary, having
passed it's second and third readings.
The court held among other things in this
opinion, which was written by Chief JUS
tice FErches:
The commissioners of county have the
right to contract for building court
house without any special legislative au-
thority to do so.
The legality of the act is attacked be-
cause 1T names a number of persons, who
shall have the supervision of the build
ing of the court house, and gives them 50
per day This may have been unneces-
sary and expensive, but it does not seem
to take from the commissioners any of
their constitutional rights. 1t is in eff
feet making these same men building
committee at the price of So per day,
and IL this was unnecessary or extrava-
CANT, 1t does not in our opinion render
the act void. This disposes of the first
questionable validity of the court house
bonds and the injunction as to them was
properly refused.
The other question, the necessary ex-
pense to the county, has been discussed to
some extent The plaintiff contended in
his complaint that some of the expenses
set out by defendant do not appear to be
necessary county expenses-such as notes
due the banks, the County Board of Edu-
cation, borrowed money, etc. These do
not appear to have been necessary ex-
penses. The defendants say in their an
swer that they can prove by an abund-
ance of evidence that they were, but this
does not make it so. The allegation of
the complaint that they were not and of
the answer that they were raised an issue
OF fact, which the Judge was not author
lied to try. The defendant contended
that the court would presume that the
County Commissioners acted properly and
that the notes were given for necessary
expenses, but where there is allegation
and denial as to whether true or not
true, the court can presume nothing, and
il the case had stood upon complaint and
answer the court would have held that
there was error in not granting the in
Junction. until the hearing, as to the in
debtedness alleged to have been made for
necessary expenses of the county. But
the plaintiff in his replication comes to
the relief of the defendant. The defen-
dant in it's answer says that 'all the
money obtained on those notes and
overdrafts was used in payment of neces-
sary expenses" and the plaintiff in his
replication to the answer, when it was
not necessary that he should reply, says
that sit is true that the money received
from the notes and overdrafts at the
bank was used by the counties for the
purposes and in the manner therein al