The French Broad hustler. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1896-1912, 1908-07-09

given purpose shall be submitted
to the voters of a town for their
approval, this will amount to a
statutory restriction, and such
indebtedness shall not be incur
red unless the measure has been
sanctioned and approved by the
voters, according to the provis-
ions of the Statute. And this,
though such indebtedness is prop
erly classed as a necessary ex-
|pense. Robinson v. Goldsboro,
1876 N. C, 382; Wadsworth V.
Concord, 1873 N. c., 587.
In the case, before us, the prop
osition is to issue bonds of the
Town of Hendersonville to the
amount of $18, 900, to raise money
for the purpose of building and
repairing certain sidewalks in
the town., and laying the same in
cement" The Charter of the
Town, Chap. 81, Laws 1901, Sec.
9, provides that when the Com
missioners shall decide to pave
the streets of said town, or any
of the streets of said town., the
question shall be submitted to and
decided by a majority of those
Voting upon the proposition, the
vote to be taken in the same way
that elections are held for other
municipal purposes, ETC." The
term streets, may and frequently
does include sidewalks and drive
ways, and while there are many
decisions which, under certain
facts and conditions, distinguish
and separate the two, we are
clearly of the opinion that in an
undertaking of this magnitude,
involving an expenditure of $751;
600 gin paving sidewalks, that
both the purpose of the law and
Court Interpretation requires that
the term streets in this connect
ion should include sidewalks,
bringing the proposition within
the provisions of Section 9 of
the Charter, requiring that a
vote of the people should be
taken.
1t is true that the Commission
ers in this instance profess to be
acting under and by virtue
of Section 6 of the charter and
claim that by reason of this Sec
ton, the bonds for the purposed
proposed may be issued without
a vote. This section provides
that the lot owners may be re-
quired to pave the sidewalks,
under certain circumstances, and
pay for same; and further, that
if they fail to do this, after prop
er notice, the Commissioners of
the Town may have them paved,
and charge the amount to the
respective owners, and such
charge is made a lien on the
property. It may be that;if the
Town Commissioners could pave
the sidewalks of certain individ-
ual owners, who had been duly
notified, from the current reve-
nue. amounting onlyto an item
of charge in the current eN
penses of the town, that such
a plan can be carried out under
provisions of Section 6. But the
proposition contained in these
facts is not so restricted. As
heretofore stated, it embraces a
general scheme for paving the
sidewalks of the town, or an in
definite, undesignated number of
them, and for mourning a town
Indebtedness of $18, 600 for this
general purpose. In our opinion,
this proposition is entirely beyond
the scope Of Section 6, and comes
clearly within the requirements
of Section 9, and beforeit can be
lawfully carried out, must have
the approval of the voters, taken
in the manner required by the
Statute.
There was error in holding that
the proposed bonds would be a
vailed Indebtedness of the Town,
and the judgement below to that
effect must be reversed.
This will be certified that the
L r1ANn~~@@~AA