Judsonia weekly advance., 1913-07-16

Her Board of Directors of Jefferspr County Bridge District. B A. l.. R. 154, there being no tribunal provided for ap- pellees relief that the court of chan cery must take Jurisdiction to protect his rights The court said there:
 If the finding must be treated as conclusive that is the end of it, so far as the machinery of the law is con cerned. rpr the court can not supply a provision for review where the law makers have said there shall be none. But it does not follow that the land owners have no remedy against fraud practiced by the board in making a false declaration of the will of ma jorty of the land owners of the dis trct. Fraud yitiates any proceeding or transaction. from the judgment Of the highest court Of the land down to the smallest transaction between indi- vidualS. and there is a remedy to purge the fraud The court of equity is the proper forum for such relief unless the same is otherwise provided by statute. The act creating the district makes conclusive the finding of the Board of Directors as to a majority petitionirs for the improvement; but no intention is attributable to the lawmakers t. give a conclusive effect. beyond the ramedial power of the court of equity, U false finding fraudulentlX announced by the Board a"
 Fraud, which will vitig. the pro cedings of the board de IS not mean
  fact. In order to cbnsdtute fraud there must have beep an intent not to exercise an honest Judgment and make a true finding. buf to disregard the facts and make a false finding. ms is not alleged in the petition Taking the allegations a's q whole, they amount only to a charge of error on the part of the board in refusing to hear ana consider protests and evidence affecting the questio,. at issue and that the peti- ton was not in fact. signed by ma jority of the property owners.
 The l. W does provide on appeal from the corImittee's decision to the eonven- ton the party which. under the cir cums ances. the near approach of the elect .on and the requirements of the law that the nomination should be cer- tified a certain time before it's occur Be nee prevented the calling of d con vention. but in that case, unlike this, civil and property rights are involved, and the jurisdiction of equity will ex- tend to their protection under such CIT cumstances but cannot be extended to the protection of more political rights as alleged herein
 Committee Is An-Powerful.
 The Democratic Central Committee had the power under the rules and regu lations of the party and of the statute and it was it's duty to hear and deter mine the contest. declare the result of the election and certify the name of the candidate receiving the largest number
  ing to the returns thereof. to the secre- tary Of state. to be by him certified as the candidate of the Democratic party to the various county election comnis- Sioners according to law
 This it claims to have done and the court of equity was without Jurisdiction to issue an injunction to compel it to hear the contest in the first instance and had no power or jurisdiction to re- view it's finding and declare the result of the election in accordance with the chancellor's views of the right thereto and set aside the finding and Judgment of the Democratic party by enjoinins the secretary of state from certifying the name of the nominee furnished him by the said eommitte to be certified to the election commissioners of the eoun- ties. Having assumed to exercise such authority without rights it's judgment and decree is void and of no effect and the decree is reversed. the injunction dis solved and the petition dismissed