Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1905-10-12
DENIES INJUNCTION
Judge Macy Dlsselves Ditch Re-
stralnlns Order,
Supervisors Delay New Contract
On Courts Advise,
Plaintiff Today May Appeal Or
Ask Continuance.
Joint Board Members Prepared
t. Sign Contracts or Ask
Heavy Supersedeas Bond.

Judge Macy's decision in the drainage
ditch Injunction case, given yesterday
Immediately on the conclusion of the
three day S hearing, was in favor of
the joint board of supervisors for Pot
tawattamie and Harrison counties. The
restraining order secured two weeks
ago by r. A. Brown e. Co. was dissolv-
cd and the rights of the plaintiff un-
der the contract of 1903 declared to
to have been forfeited by the failure to
perform any work within the period up
to May of the present year, which was
the date allowed in the instrument for
completing construction
All the supervisors were present
when Judge Macy announced his find
ings at SIS p. ma They repaired at
once to the south court room, where
Chairman Brandcs called the Joint
board to order. Everything was in
readiness to carry out the formality of
signing up contracts with the Western
Dredging company and Pollard, Golf
& Co., Recipients of the recent award,
when a message came from Judge
Macy directing that no action be taken
until morning, in order to allow at
torncvs for Brown & Co time in which
to move for a continuance of the re-
strainingordcr
Adjournment was accordingly taken
by the Joint board until this morning
when the motion will probably be Of
tercd in court and passed upon. If it
should be ovcrrulcd. Browns lawyers
will then have the alternative of takin,
an appeal and filing supcrsedeas bond.
Attorney G. S. Wright, Browns local
counsel said he did not know what
course would be pursued 1t is under
stood that if no appeal is made in the
injunction suit, Brown will commence
m action againet the drainage district
for damages
Barred All lnterycnors.
On converting court in the morning.
Judge Macy sustained the motion of the
plaintiff to bar all the intelvenors from
the case. This left the Western Dredg-
company, Pollard, Golf & Co., the
Northern CONSTRUCTION company and
the original ditch petitioners without
any standing i'll court, and the Joint
drainage board remained as the only
defendant In order that the attorn-
cys who had been appearing for the in
tervcnors might continue i'll the trial,
the supervisors were hurridly called to-
gethcr, and all the lawyers were APP
pointed as special counsel to represent
the board, i'll conjunction with County
Attorneys Hess and Fallon.
Judge Macy devoted half an hour to
reviewing the case in an exhaustive
manner, before announcing that he
would dissolve the injunction. He
dwelt upon the facts .hown in the testi-
mony that Brown had demanded his
bond and contract back and besides
no effort to commence the
work, had allowed mo,c than year to
go by without any communication pas
sing between himself and the Joint
board or its representatives 1t was
clear i'll the courts mind that not only
Brown but the board as we'll abondcd
the contract and treated it is having no
force.
Both Parties at Sea.
Both parties were unquestionably
at sea when the supreme court declared
the old ditch null and void, said
Judge Macy, "the situation at that
time seemed without remedy. The ge-
neral assembly had enacted a new law
designed to cure the defects of the for
ner statute. The decision in the Smith |
case was handed down about the time
that this legislation became operative.
The question arose how to meet the |
by additional legislation. |
"Mr. Downey, who was Mr.. Browns
partner, felt that additional legislation
would not afford any relief. He said |
hat they could not risk it or afford to
AXE chances by going ahead with the
work. This was reasonable attitude
or business man to take, as there APP
oeared to be little chance of getting
my payment for the labor of construct
ng the bitches.
about June l, Brown concluded he