Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1913-01-14

] courts"
 The plain effect of that decision was to hold that the f ndng of the [ beard, as special tribunal created 1 by the Iegis lalure for that +iurDO6c, must be accepted as conclusive. and is not revie Wable by the courts. That l is to say, rot reviewabe by superior courts ill the exerc SC of appellate ol supervisory control over inferiJr IT, 1 bunals.
 l The effort in thls case is not to attack the proceedings of the boafd as void on the face thereof, but ;1- pellant seeks a review of the pro- Caedings under the circuit courts l supervisory power over tHe iidg ments and proceedings of inferior ri bunals. in other words, to substitu the writ of certiorari for au appeal, and ill that manner obtain a revi of the alleged erroneous findings of | he board.
 1 If We adhere to our decision in the Sh blcy case, supra, that the find ing of tine board mast be accepted IS , conclusive, then there can be no re- view by the cil cni, court on appeal i or any substitute for appeal. If tGc findings must be treated as oonclu- sive that is the end of it so far as the machinery of tha law is concern ed, for the cou'ts cannot supply d provis on for review where the law makers have said the.'g shall be none.
 But it does no; follClN fiat ths land owners have no remedy against i;ald practiced by the board in making sl false declaration of the will of tlc majority of the land CATsrs of the district. Fraud vitlates any proceed ng or transaction, from the judS- ment of tae highest coult of the lant down to the smalles transaction be- twen individuals, and there is a rem etly to purge the fraud. The court of equity is the proper forum for such relief unless the same is otherwise provided by atute. Th9 act creat-
 ng the district makes conclusive the finding of the board of directors as to majority petitioning for the inn provemenu; but no in,lntion is att tributable to the lawmakers to give conclus ve effect, beyond the tem- edial power of the court of equity, to a false finding fraudulenily announc- ed by the board.
 It is contended by learned counsel II for appellee that ,taa la anass0sxnar can= not complain of fraudulent finding of the board unless the assessment subsequently, levied on his proper y exceed the benefits derived from th'a
 onnfnnfi0n unsound. It is true that the Legisla- ture has the power to lay off an im- provement district without giving the property owners an opportunity to be heard. Shibley vs. Ft. Smith and Van Buren Bridge Distr ct, sup1a,; Fallbrook Irrigation District vs. Bradley, 1884 U s. 112. But the prop erty owner has the right to insist, whether his assessments exceed the benefits or not, that they fall within the author ty of law and that he power to levy assessments has been duly conferred by the lawmakers. |The condition prescribed by the sta tute now before us upon which Assessments may be levied, is that the board of directors must first lind that a majority of the property c'Wn- CTS have petitioned for the improve ment, and each property owner can stand upon hs right to resist the col lection of assessments unless that condition has been compiled with. A fraudulent finding by the board. when ascertained by. a court of com petent jurisdiction to be fraudulent, is equivalent to no fnding at all, and lis not compliance with the prescrib- ed condition, for the statute con en- plates a finding honestly made by the board and not willfully fraudulent. Hence, a property owner shouIl be allowed to call in question, On the ground of fraud, finding of he board of directors. Certiorari is not the proper remedy. for the reason that the finding of the board is to be conclusive in the absence of fraui, and no supervisory power is given to any court. Chancery is the proper forum, and affords the only remedy, because 1t can and ,wlll relieve against fraud. s.. ,.......
 If the allegations of the petition were sufficient the circuit court should have transferred the cause to equity, instead of sustaining the de- murrer to the complaint. Newman vs. Mountain Park Land Co.,, S5 Ark. POS. We are of the op nion, however, that the petition does not state facts sufficient to make out such charge of fraud against t'ne board of direct ors as will warrant setting aside the findings. Fraud which will vtate the proceedings of the. board does not mean errors of the board either of law or fact. In order to constitute fraud there must have been an intent not to exercise an honest Judgment and make true finding, but to dis regard the facts and make false find This is not alleged in the petition. Taking the allegations as a whole they amount only to charge of error On the part of the board in refusing to hear and consider pro-
 CONTINUED ON PAGE FOUR) Av> n>~u