The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1909-03-18
PETITIONERS MUST PAY COSTS.
Iudao Evans Quashes the Appeal from County
Auditors Report Of sos.

An opinion was fled on Monday
by Judge Evans, in which he dis
missed the exceptions to the county
auditors report of 1905, and put
the costs on the petitioners.
The exceptions were filed tor
the purpose of suscharging county
commissioners G. w. Sterner, w.
S. Fisher, and William Bogart
with large amount of money al
legged to have been paid out by
them enormously on the Mifflin-
vile bridge.
In July, 1906, a petition was
filed asking for hearing on excep-
tions to the report of the County
Auditors for the year previous. 1t
was claimed that 1t was wrong to
allow credit for $4,000 paid on
account of the Mifflinville bridge
contract, and for railing on the
East Bloomsbury bridge. 1t was
alleged that these amounts ought
to have been surcharged.
The matter was continued from
time to time, and the court finally
required that bond be given
which was done. AS there was no
apparent attempt to argue the case,
the court in response to a petition
quashed the proceedings putting
the costs on the original petitioners.
They are as follows: William F.
Bodine, A. L. Folk, Joseph Cole,
Geo. Breisch, ]. c. Shuman, o.
B. Mellick, J. S. Welliver. A. H.
Neyhart, w. B. Hess, William
Beaver and w. II. Leiby.
The opinion of the court follows:
Section one of the Act of June
~, 1873. (P. L. 2oS) provides
that land ten or more taxpayers
of any county of this common
wealth may in behalf of such
county, appeal from the report OF
its county auditors to the court of
Common Pleas 4 +; provided,
that if no appeal be entered by
county officials, that the appeal by
such taxpayers shall be entered
within ninety days after the filing
of such report in the court of Com
mon Pleas; and the appellants
shall enter into recognizance with
two sufficient sureties that appel.
lants shall prosecute said appeal
with effect, and pay all costs that
may accrue thereon, in case they
fail to obtain final decision more
favorable to the county than that
from which such appeal is taken"
"On May 4th, 1907, we approved
a recognizance signed by nine of
the eleven taxpayers and citizens
who had appealed from the report
of the county auditors. Were we
in error in so doing? The recog-
nizance appears to have been filed
in the Prothonotary's office, May
Is. 1907. The portion of the act
above quoted provides that ten or
more taxpayers may on behalf of
the county appeal, and that the aP-
pellants shall enter into recogni-
zance with sureties conditioned that
they will prosecute this appeal with
effect.
Not less than ten taxpayers and
citizens can appeal on behalf of the
county, and the act further requires
that they, the appellants, shall en-
ter into recogniZance. This is man |
datory. The recognizance of nine
of the eleven taxpayers and citizens
who originally desired to appeal is
scarcely compliance with the stat
ute so as to make the appeal effec-
tive. At least ten of the appellants
should have entered into the recog-
nixance. We were therefore in
error when we approved the bond !
or recognizance signed by nine OF
the appellant taxpayers.
The act of June II. 1905, (P. L.
le2) enacted for the purpose of
having bridges rebuilt by the COM
monwealth that were destroyed
by foods during the process of con-
aruction provides THAT there shall |