The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1911-10-18
GET HEARING
IN SCHOOL CASE
Taxpayers Of South Ca
naan Against Building
High School.
14O SIGN PETITION WHICH AT
TORNEY HOMER GREENE
PRESENTS TO COURT.

An action was recently instituted
r. in the Common Pleas of Wayne, sit
ting in equity, at the suit of~W. w.
| KiZer ct al, residents and taxpayers
of South Canaan, against the School
4 Directors of the district of South
. Canaan, to restrain the latter, from
& proceeding with the erection of
I high school building on lot pur-
chased for that purpose by the dis
trict in March, 1909; and on Oct 6
preliminary injunction was issued
by Judge Searle.
Last Saturday, hearing took
place before Judge Searle on the
= question of continuing the injunc-
tion; Homer Greene appearing as
counsel for the plaintiffs, and H.
4 Wilson and w. H. Lee for the de-
fense.
The ground on which the injunc-
tion was prayed for, as set forth in
the plaintiffs bill of complaint, was
that at the township election held
Feb. Is, 1910, the question of es-
tablishing a high school and cen
Trailing the public schools of the
township was submitted to a vote of
the qualified electors, under the act
of 25 April, 1901, and that at said
XeleCllOH 10 fOleS were cdSJ III
flavor of such school and 112
votes against it, but that notwith-
Nstanding such vote, the directors
have officially resolved to proceed
with the erection of a high school
building and the Capitalization of
the schools, and have contracted for
the erection of such building.
Before the case was opened on
thn ri ~ tho r1aintiffc hn
sci for the defendants presented a
motion to dissolve the injunction
and dismiss the bill. The grounds
for this motion were a denial that
the question of centralizing the
schools was legally submitted at
said election, in conformity with the
act of 25 April 1901, or that any
Votes were legally cast at said cleo
tion against the Capitalization of the
schools. In support of this conten-
Xtion, as matter of law, counsel for
the directors cited the provisions of
the act of 1901 for submitting the
of Capitalization to a vote;
Section providing that the directors
Upon the petition of a majority of
the qualified electors, representing
or owning property to the amount of
Xone-fourth of the assessed valuation
of such district, must submit such
Question to a vote of the qualified
electors of such township district;
land section 8 providing that upon
such vote The ballots shall have
{printed thereon: For Capitalization
Yes. For centralization-No."
lt was alleged, in the motion, that
these provisions were not Observed
that no petition, as required by the
Act, was presented to the directors,
and that the ballots, instead of the
printing required by the act, had
printed thereon For high school
Yes. For high school-No.' The
motion further set forth that the
chief matter in controversy at the
Election, was whether the proposed
high school should have two rooms
or three rooms; that the directors
posted printed notices that they pro-
posed to erect high school build
ing having two rooms, at a cost not
Exceeding $500; that many of
those who voted against a high
: school did so not because they were
&ppposed to a high school of itself,
3or to Capitalization, but because
they disapproved of a building of
but two rooms; and that others who
voted against it did so because they
451isapproved of the location selected,
6knd wished to have the building
rected near Warden, about three
quarters of mile distant
& So far as shown by the evidence,
*ho petition, such as the act of 1901
y requires, was ever laid before the
< Directors; and the ballots, instead
Pf being in conformity with that act,
& were printed For high school
4 Yes. For high school-Ne." The
feturn of the election was High
" Fchools: For, rs, against, 112."
On the part of the directors, it
7Nas contended that, as no petition
or submitting the question of CEN
Lralization had been presented to
he directors, no election could leg
billy be held on that question; and as
here was no provision of law au-
\ #horizing the submission of the
#luestion of a high school, there
&fould be no legal election on that
Question; hence that the election
4 bad no legal effect in controlling the
a. hction of the directors on the sub
4 ect. 1t was further shown that the
proposed building was to have three
+ #'ooms, while the vote at the cleo
Il ion, even If effective, was only
against a two-room building, which
he directors had given notice of
! heir intention to build, and had no
application to a three-room building.
On the part of the plaintiffs, be-
+ sides asserting the prohibitive ef-
ect of the vote, it was contended
y hat the motion by the directors, at
meeting held in June, 1911, pro-
yiding for the erection of the pro-
*bosed building, was not legally
adopted or put on record as requir-
d by law. Upon the hearing, four
bf the directors testified the full
board was present. and that five di-
ectors voted In favor of the mo-
ion, and the sixth declined to vote.
I. s. Megargel, Secretary of the
Board. testified that but five direc-