Arizona republican., 1911-06-17
SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICTS IN STATE 0F SUSPENSION TRIAL OF A TEST CASE YEsTER-
 DAY. Judge Kent Will Probably Render De-
 eision This Morning.

Though very little money is directly involved, the case of the Glendale Land company against County Treasurer Babbitt, tried yesterday before Judge Kent is one of me most important on the docket. since on the decision hangs the fate of the special roads districts of this county.
 It was a test suit begun at the sug- gestion of the county treasurer and on the advice of the district attorney, to determine the status of the special dis tricts which. according to a decision by Judge Campbell in Yuma county. were wiped put of existence by the law ere ating the office of county road superin- tendent
 The Glendale Land company is the holder of a claim for a little more than s1O approved by the board of trustees of special road district No. g. Payment was refused and an application for writ of mandamus followed.
 Messrs. Kibbey Bennett and Bennett appeared for the land company and Assistant District Attorney Lyman for the treasurer
 It was the contentiOn of the attOr- neys for he applicant that 1t was not the intention of the legislature to give the county road superintendent control over special districts but only that he should assume the duties hitherto de- volving upon the road overseers who were thereby wiped out of existence.
 The law provides that the Jurisdlc- ton of the road superintendent shall be extended over all public lands" According 10 the attorneys for the plaintiff. if the law is construed to mean that the superintendent is in- vested with more authority than that previously exercised by the overseers. it must be construed to mean that he has authority over the streets and all leys Of incorporated cities and towns for they are also public thorOughfares and therefore roads.
 Such construction, the attorneys for the plaintiff claimed would wipe out the special districts as effectually as it has wiped out the various road dis tricts.
 The court asked if the removal of the function from the boards of trustees would be a destruction of the districts. Mir. Bennett replied that it would nec- essarily do so. He further called at tention to the bonds which had been issued by special road district No. l and the levy ordered by the supervisors for the payment of the interest and for the creation of a sinking fund. That bonded indebtedness he believed would become a county indebtedness
 Mir Lyman took issue there. The law creating the road superintendent he said had taken no power away from the supervisors who now acted through the superintendent rather than through several overseers. He believed that the board could order Ievies within the dis triets benefited by the bond issue
 Judge Kent took the matter under advisement and will probably render decision this morning as he expects to leave on his vacation today
 It was stated as a fact. though not in court. and the fact could have no bear ing on the intent of the legislature. that he man who framed the county super intendent law. a resident of CSchise county, had in mind the taking of the special districts out Of the hands of the trustees. without affecting the in tegrity of the districts. But that pur- pose was not discussed while the bill was pending. the general understanding on the floor of both houses being that nothing was intended except t, put the superintendent in the place of the over seers.