The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-04-20

Of 1.201 would be 480. But inasmuch as
the wedding out process left but 39S the
petition had to be denied, the signatures
falling 50 short of the requisite number
as the law requires.
The petition was filed with the coun-
tv commissioners on February / 6, 1906.
It was turned over to the county clerk
to be examined to see if it contained
the necessary two-fifths signatures.
Henry l. Monroe. deputy county clerk
reported that it was al fright and rec
commended that the petition be allowed
Those who objected to the creation of
the district employed Judge T. T. Hazen
and John Sch enck to fight the matter
They employed County Treasurer
Bowen to make a close and careful
examination. He reported that there
we're not enough signatures. The mat
ter was then given hearing before
the county commissioners on April 13.
At that time Mr.. Monroe testified on
examination that he had made his esti-
mate on general knowledge. II did
not go through the petition thorough
w." he said. Il considered every name
as taxpayer. [ estimated 1000 tax
payers in the district and then thought
that 42S would make up the requisite
two-ffths."
The commissioners today went over
all the testimony given at the hearing
and then made a personal investigation
upon the matter They found that the
petition did not contain a sufficient
number of names and denied it. They
issued this statement on the matter:
BE it known that on the 18th day of
February 1906, a petition was filed in
the county clerks Office asking that
drainage district containing lands
therein fully set forth. be created and
be known as the North Topeka drains
age district No. l. And thereafter on
the % day of April. 1906. an order was
made that due and proper notice be Civ
en- by publication that a hearing would
be had on said petition before the
board of county commissioners at the
court house in Topeka on the 18th day
of April, 1906 And on the said 18th
day of April 1906, said petition came
on for hearing, the petitioners being
represented by NJ. T. Campbell and N.
3. Arnold as attorneys, and the pro-
testants by John Schenck, 4. r. Hazen
and John Abaham as attorneys, and
the hearing of testimony being had and
the board being fully advised in the
premises does find as follows:
THAT legal notice was given of the
hearing; that the number Of resident
taxpayers in the proposed district is
twelve hundred and one; that the actual
number of resident taxpayers that sign
ed the petition is three hundred and
ninety-eight. That the law requires
twO-ffths of the resident taxpayers to
sign the petition, which would be four
hundred and eighty-one; that the prop
erty lying west of the center of the
south quarter of section twelve town
/ ship eleven, range fourteen, is not sub
ject to overflow by Soldier creek and
viii not be benefited by the creation Of
/ said district
1T is therefore considered. ordered
and adjudged that the requisite number
I of resident taxpayers have not signed
( the petition; that certain property has
( been Improperly embraced in said dis
/ trict, and that the petition should be
/ denied
IS H. HAYNES, Chairman.
w. E STERNE
#. W. HARRISON