Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-08-30
COMMISSIONERS DECISION
STANDS.
Attempt to Upset Cumberland County
Roadway Decision Fails. 9

ct ais, VS.. County Commissioners.
Rescript by King, ]. -,
Hiram c.. Lord and twenty-one oth-
ers petitioned the Supreme Judicial
Court for Cumberland county, Maine,
for a writ of certiorari to quash the
record of the proceedings of the county
commissioners Of said county in laying
out a town way in the town of Naples.
Numerous alleged errors in the pro-
ceedings are set out in the petition,
but they. may all be condensed into
two, viz: a. That notice of the time
and place of the commissioners hear
ing was not given in compliance with
the provisions of the statute. CD That
the commissioners did not adjudicate
that the municipal officers had I'M
reasonably neglected and refused to
lay out the way.
There is, however, at the Threshold
of the case, another question to be de-
termined the decision of which is, we
think, decisive of the matter before
us
No one but party to the record, or
one who has a direct and immediate
interest in it, or is privy thereto, can
maintain a petition for certiorari. Are
the petitioners in this case shown TO
have such an interest in the proceed
ings sought to be quashed as entities
them to maintain the writ? They are
not parties to the record. None OF
them appear to have been petitioners
to the municipal officers for the way,
or to the county commissioners. The
way is not laid out over their land.
The only ground for their claim %
right to petition for this writ is that
they are citizens and taxpayers of
said town of Naples" If for this rea-
son they have the right to petition for
certiorari to quash the laying out of
this town way, then for a like reason
has each citizen and taxpayer a like
right. But to permit that would De
both unreasonable and contrary to
precedent.
1t is the opinion of the court there
fore that the petitioners are not
shown to have such an interest in the
proceedings as entities them to main
tain their petition.
But If the petitioners We're entitled
to prosecute the writ an examination
Of the record as certified up shows that
the alleged errors complained of are
not such in fact. % AS to the notice,
Sec. ,, Chap. %, r. S., provides that
the commissioners shall cause thirty
days notice to be given of the time
and place of their meeting by posting
copies of the petition, with their order
thereon, in three public places in each
town in which any part of the way is
and serving one on the clerks of such
towns, and publishing it in some news
paper, if any, in the county
The commissioners ordered such no.
tice to be given in this case The
same section of the statute provides
so given being proved and entered Of
record, shall be sufficient for all in
terested, and evidence thereof"
The record shows that the commits
sioners found as a fact, and entered
the same in their record, that it was
then and there satisfactorily proved
to us that all the notices named in
said order had been duly and season.
ably published, served and posted, and
that all the requirements thereof had
been fully complied with"
Thus the record certified up shows a
full compliance with the requirements
of the statutes as to notice. But the
petitioners attempt to show outside of
the record that it is not true; that the
notice actually published, served ANA
posted did not contain copy of the
petition because the names of all the
petitioners were not copied, but only
that of the first IN. s. Bracket" with
the addition land thirty-six Others"
If there were merit in such objection
to the notice it could not avail the
petitioners. When the writ issues and
in response thereto the record is sent
up the court can only act upon such
record No evidence outside of the
record is receivable to show any error
therein. If the record is incorrect and
it should be amended before
being sent up.
But we are Of opinion that there
no merit in this objection. We do not
readily perceive in what respect any
interested party could be materially
disadvantaged by the omission to copy
the names of all the petitioners in the
notice given. The object of the notice
is to give information of the time,
pieiNN anu pun DoScS VI Tie CDlIlllllSSlOl-
ers' meeting, A notice containing
copy of the petition, and with only the
name of one petitioner copied, must be
as effective for this purpose as a SINH
lar notice containing all the names.
The original petition is on file with
the commissioners and the names of
all may be ascertained at any time
from an inspection of it. Moreover, it
has been the uniform practice in this
State. we think, in proceedings for the
laying out of ways, where the notice
ordered to be given is to include d copy
of the petition, not to copy the sigma
lures of all the petitioners in the no.
tice, but only the first with a state
ment of the number of the others, as
was done in this case. Such practice
has continued so long, and been relied
upon as sufficient so universally, that
for reasons of public policy if for no
other it should now be regarded as a
substantial and sufficient compliance
with the statute. CID In the amend
ed record sent up it is expressly
stated that the commissioners did adj
judge that the municipal officers hat
unreasonably neglected and refused tc
lay out the way. The petitioners now