Shoshone journal. [volume] (Shoshone, Idaho) 1884-1931, 1908-06-12
SCHOOL DISTRICT UPHELD.
Judge Walters Holds School Dis
trict Consolidation Legal.

Judge Walters, who on Friday heard
the testimony in the case of C. A. Jones
VS.. the Board Of County Commiss-
toner's, an appeal from the board S
action in granting the central school
districts for Gooding, sustained the de-
PENDANTS IN every point brought up.
AS the case interests good many peo-
pie IN that locality, as we'll as others
where such consultations of districts
may be contemplated, it is here given
in full:
By the files in this appeal it appears
that certain persons who claimed to be
resident heads of families" residing
in school districts Nos. l, and 10. in
Lincoln County, Idaho, duly petitioned
the County Commissioners of said
county that said school districts Nos. l,
6 and 10 be united and constitute one
district. Said petition was duly ap-
proved by the school Superintendent
of said Lincoln County and was present
ed to the Board, as by law required,
and after having said petition under
advisement said Board, on the 18th day
of April, granted said petition and or
dered that said school districts be con-
solidated as one district to be known as
School District No. 10. Within the
time required by law for the taking of
an appeal from the action of the Board
of County Commissioners, George W.
Polling, Salem Carpenter and Mrs. J. P
Stevenson, as Trustees of School Dis
trict No. appealed from the above
action of the Board to the District
Court, and thus the order of the Board
of County Commissioners in this regard
comes to this Court for inspection
Among the reasons assigned by the
plaintiffs for the reversal of the order
made and entered, they allege that
these persons signing the petition ask
ing for the consolidation of said school
districts, do not constitute two-thirds |
of these who are heads of families and |
residents of the districts whose boun- !
diaries are in question; and that said |
petitioners do not constitute major |
ity of the heads of families residing in |
each of said school districts Nos /, 6 |
and 10. However, at the hearing of
this cause petitioners only introduced
proof to the effect that a majority of
the ''heads of families" residing in
Dist. No. had not signed said petition
asking for the consolidation of said
districts. The plaintiffs first contended
that before defendant Board can be
justified in making this order it must
appear that at least two-thirds of
those who are heads of families and
residents of said districts have signed
such petition; and on this feature of
the case l cannot hold with plaintiffs,
but am satisfied that if a majority of
the ''heads of families in each district
sign such petition, that the Board
would be justified in law in making
such an order as is here complained of. |
1t appears to me that the reading of
the law alone on this subject is plain z
and unequivocal, such statute being I
as follows: THAT two or more districts t
lying contiguous, may, upon petition Y
Of majority of families residing in $
each of said districts, be united to con- r
,titute one district. By their proofs il
lere in the plaintiffs abandoned their h
position that majority of the ''heads t
# families" had not signed the petit D
on respecting school districts Nos. l, 6 s;
md contended very vigorously that h
majority of the heads of families re- If
iding in School District No. l had not Il
igned such petition. In School Dis S;
riot No it appears that the following W
even persons, alleging themselves to in
e heads of families residing in said b,
ehool district Mol had signed said M
etition, to wit: Louis Walters, J. B ii
Walters, w. F. Johnson, d. 0. Stiles, I'll
"a Fayette Stiles, Guy Worden and h,
!. w. Bastrom. The proofs introduced lie
learly showed that the following five e1
ersons who were heads of families re- to
ding in said districts had not signed |
lch petition, to wit: John Dacey, J. C;
!. Stevenson, George Polling, Mr.. Bry- sa
Mt and Salem Carpenter. The proof tn
Introduced at the hearing in this case su
lowed that ]. B. Walter, D. o. Stiles de
nd La Fayette Stiles, being persons is
no were heads of families residing in st
aid district, and who had signed said re
atition, had not been residents of the hi
tate of Idaho six months prior to the tn
me of signing such petition; but on tn
lie contrary, had resided in this State of
II period of from two to three months ia
I'd for this reason plaintiffs allege tn
lat said persons were not legally quail Id
ed to sign such petition. And this, Gu
my mind, is the vital question in wa
is proceeding. The statute relative clu
this sabject does not say, in so many ma
rds..thata.before one is qualified to sio
IN such petition they must be cit vii
IN or an elector of the State Of Idaho, sig
: sssply says that such person must pei
the head of a family residing in said did