The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-03-29
M0UNTRA|l COUNTY ASKS Time IN
WHICH TO DECIDE ON NEW STEPS.
Supreme Court of North Dakota Has Laid Down Lines
Along Which Cash Features Shall be Car
ed for When Counties are Divided.

Minot. y. D.. March GA joint
meeting of the boards OF county con-
m~:ssionevs Of Ward md Mountrail
counties vas held in ,his city. owing
10 the fact that the Mouutrail count:
board has fifteen days in which 70 ask
Ior q re-hear!ng. = 70 give them an
opportunity Of consulting the states
attorney Of that COUNTY III. boards
adjourning until April 20. II Is IN
derstood that a re-nearing Will not ha
asked. hUt j; vas deemed advisable. by
tbs members of The Mountra!l coUnty
board 20 have the decision thoroughly
examined by their attorney before pro-
ceeding with q settlement. in case
there should ne grounds for a re-hear-
Ing.
The decision Of the supreme court
Affirming Judge C. +. Templeton in
mis- decision in favor Of Ward county
and which was handed down toy the
higher court last week was written by
Judge Fisk and follows:
The facts necessary 20 a correct
understanding of The questions in
VOWED on these appeals are not seri-
ously in dispute nearly all OF uch
they are as follows:
Mountrail county. which WAS form
erlE embraced within the territory of
Ward county was at rht- general cleo
ton in 1905. duly segregated there
from and set apart as Moun,rail
county pursuant to law. Such new
county was organized in January.
1903, and thereafter the commissions
ers of the TWO counties met pursuant
to law and attempted 10 effect a set
me of the property and indebt-
cdness between the two counties. They
failed to agree as TO the statutory
rule which they should follow in
making such settlement and for the
purpose of obtaining a judicial deter
mination Of tho questions in dispute
REALTORS both in their capacity as in
diNidual taxpayers and as members of
the board Of count commissioners of
Mountrail county, instituted manda-
mus proceedings against defendants
as members of the board of county
commissioners Of Ward county. Is
sue was joined and as before stated.
the facts were nearly all stipulated.
and AT the conclusion of the trial ,h-
district court found that here was u
balance of s6.30l.95 du. from Noun
trail county TO Ward county and en-
tered judgment requiring the former
10 deliver to the latter its bonds for
such balance.
From such Judgment, both parties
have appealed. The learned trial
court found that the total outstand-
ing Indebtedness Of the ORIGINAL Ward
county on july l.. 1909. was s34a.-
1896: that the amount Of outstand-
ing bonds given and mo-o" paid for
public property owned by and re-
naming within the limits of tho or
iginal county of Ward on July !. 1909,
was s1~40.5sa.49: that the public
funds Of Ward county on hand July
l. 1909. excluding special funds. such
as high school. road and other funds.
was 164.sal.10; that after subtract
ing the last two items from the total
Indebtedness Of Ward county a bal
ance remains of s~44.206.s7. and that
the portion thereof which Mountrail
county should pay 10 Ward county
according to the comparative assess
ed valuations Of the respective coun-
ties. is the sum Of s6,301.95.
Questions in Dispute.
The questions in dispute are:
l. Is Ward county entitled to cred
it for any depreciation in the value
Of the property remaining within her
territorial limits, and should she be
charged with any appreciation in the
value of such property:
2. In such settlement should
Ward county be charged with the
amount expended by her in tbs con-
struction OF roads and bridges remain
ing within its limits. Mountrail coun-
ty contending that the roads and the
bridges therein should be considered
and treated as property within the
meaning Of the statute which We will
hereafter notice.
3. Included within the total out
standing Indebtedness of Ward coun-
~ is the amount Of s79.649 in the
form OF bonds and warrants for ma
terial and labor in the construction Of
roads and bridges remaining within
the limits Of Ward county. and the
question is. should Ward county be
charged with h amount IF this item
on the theory that such roads and
bridges constitute property And
4. The facts disclose tAat Ward
county had expended the sum Of $17.-
31s.s0 for record books consisting Of
permanent records for use in the va
rious county offices. and should Ward
county be charged Herewith in such
accounting?
First Against Ward County.
We find no difficulty in arriving at
the conclusion that the first question
should be answered in the negative.
The controlling statute (Sec. 1886 r..
c 1900 is not susceptible of the con-
struction commended for in behalf OF
Ward county This section requires
the county boards at their Joint ses-
sion TO ASCERTAIN as near as may he
the total outstanding Indebtedness Of
original county n from such
total they shall make the following
deductions. p. The mount of out
standing bonds given or money paid
for public property owned bv and, re-
manning within the limits Of the or
iginal county" The words Of the stat
ute above quoted are unambiguous
and leave nc room for construction.
II the property for which the bonds
were given or money paid II still in
existence and remaining in the orig
inai county, such county must be de-
bited with the cost thereof aa shown
by the bonds given or money exDend-
ed therefor. irrespective of its actual
value. or Of. any depreciation or apprc-
citation in value Of such property. The
legislature. in its wisdom. saw fit to
adopt-the. coat md iGnore the actual: