The daily sentinel., 1902-10-09
THE SCHOOL
BOND CASE.

LII ueIy ing tIe dDpllCdllOH lOT Ill
injunction made by Orson Admas Jr
plaintiff, in the school bond case in
the district court, wherein it was at
tempted to stop the sale of $50, 600
worth of school bonds, voted at the
last school election, Judge Stevens
made the following remarks. The
court said:
''As to what this money shall be
expended for, notice of that was given
and the vote of the people, what those
electors discussed when they got
there: They have no right to discuss
anything except to fix the amount that
should be fixed and voted upon for the
purposes mentioned in this petition,
and in the notice of this election, so
that l consider neither the school
board nor the district is bound by
anything that they did, except the
fixing of the amount
AS to saying what it should be used
for, that is fixed in the petition. in
pie upon that proposition, and the
school directors have no right to ap-
propriate it for anything else
What they did do with any part of
it strikes me cannot cut any figure in
the case. The actual amount was
fixed and the people voted on the pro-
po .ition that so much bonded indebt-
edness should be voted for the purpose
of erecting and furnishing school
houses. That is what that was for.
Now as to the time: l cannot see
that there is any material point in
your (speaking to Mr.. Caswell) posi-
tion in relation to that matter. The
people had full NOTICE that there was
to be bonded indebtedness voted.
They had notice of the time when the
polls would be open for that purpose.
They had notice of the time Tor at
least they would be presumed to have
| notice, as the law specifies that every
body is presumed to know the law
menced, that the electors would fix
the amuont to be voted upon.
Now, if these parties met and fixed
that amount (you do not allege that
that was an excessive amount. and
you do not allege that that was an
amount beyond what they could vote
for that purbpose, nor that you did
not need so large an amuont' for thal
purpose. III the voters thought thal
| was too much they could vote against
hut tbn of
who voted there, so far as the evi-
dence shows, presumed and supposed
that that amount had been fixed for
which notice was given for the erec-
tion and furnishing of school houses.
You are certainly in no worse fix here
than you would be if you could take
and use these funds for another pur-
pose. You could have fixed the
amount for $50, 900 and the people
could have voted for that amount
After the bonds had been issued the
directors might make up their minds
that they did not need that much, and
made a contract for school house
which would cost less money. That
would virtually put it in the same
position it is now in. They have no
more right to do that. l cannot feel
that in view of the record and in view
of the notice that the people had that
this election would be called for the
purpose of voting bonded indebted
ness for the purpose of erecting and
furnishing school houses-I cannot
think that the informal discussion
that was had as to what ought to have
been done among the few electors who
voted there when the amount was
fixed, should be controlling factor
in this case; and l am more con-
vinced now than when 1 passed. upon
it at Ouray that that is not one of the
controlling factors in this case 1t
is true it might be said that those
parties who met there and talked this
thing over, if they had understood
that this would be only an amount
that they only intended this for the
erection and furnishing of school
houses, possibly they might not have
agreed upon SO great amount; but
there is no evidence to show that
fact None of these Darties haya tac