The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1914-03-23
Judge Raymond Maxwell in
Decision Says Information
Was Sufficient.
-oMLY a SINGH PURPOSE
Too He Decides and is Not Nee
esSary to Specify Amount
for Each Bridge.

ton enjoining the sale of city bridge
bonds, in which he holds that the in
formation given the voters and tax
payers in the ordinance submitting
the bond issue question to the people
was sufficient. He also holds that the
ordinance as it relates to the cree
ton and repair of bridges is valid
and that it was not necessary to spec
ify how much each bridge should cost.
Judge Maxwell's decision in full is
as follows:
In the circuit court of Harrison
county, West Virginia.
Clarence w. Leggett, ct al,
VS.. In chancery.
City of C1arksburg, ct al.
Opinion.
1t appears from the bill of com
plant that on the 21st day of Mo-
vember, 1913, the council of the city
of Clarksburg passed an ordinance
for the issuance and sale of bonds by
the said city for the purpose of financ-'
ing certain bridge building and re-
pair, and calling for special election
for a vote to be had upon said cleo
ton; that on the sixth day of January,
1914, at a special election held pur-
suant to said call, three-ffths, or
more, of all the persons voting, cast
their votes in approval of said bond
issue.
The plaintiffs seek to -enjoin the
sale Of said bonds.
The first ground on which plaintiffs
seek to base their prayer for an In
junction is that in the said ordinance
and in the call for said election the
information given the voters and tax
payers of the disposition to be made
of the funds desired was too meager.
The language objected to and crtti-
cised is as follows:
ITO rebuild or repair the bridge on
North Fourth street, crossing Elk
creek into Glen Elk, in the said city,
and to build one or more than one,
new bridge across said Elk creek, in
said city, into Glen Elk, and to open
and extend streets, ways. and APP
proaches leading to, upon and from
said bridge or bridges
This objection is clearly not well
taken. For a precedent in support of
nv conclusion reference may be had
to a case that arose in the city OF
Clarksburg about two years ago. The
board of education of Clarksburg
school district on June 18th. 1911,
passed an order, the caption WHEREOF
was and is as follows: can order for
the borrowing money and issue OF
bonds therefor by the board of educa-
ton Of Clarksburg school district for
the purpose of building and FURNISH
ing one high school building and Two
graded school buildings and enlarg1ng
and furnishing one garded school nulld-
ing; for levy to pay interest on sald
bonds and to provide sinking fund
therefor and for special election
submitting to a vote of the people all
questions connected Herewith" And
in the call for said election the pro-
posed use to be made of money TO pc
raised by the issue of bonds was stated
to be the following:
ITO build and furnish within Clarks-
burg school district one high school
building, one graded school building
east of Park avenue and one graded
school building west of Sixth street.
and to enlarge and furnish the en-
largment of the existing Alta Vista
school building in said district.
On the 25th day of July, 1911, a
special election was held pursuant to
the said call therefor and the said pro-
posed bond issue was ratified by the
The sixth day of June, 1912, there
was filed in this court CHon. Charles
w. Lynch sitting) bill in equity OF
Thompsop H. Williams and Paul w.
LANCE. plaintiffs, against the board OF
education of Clarksburg school dis
trict and others, defendants, praying
that Ike sale of said bonds as rat1hea
by said election &c -en1otned. one OF
the grounds there relied fsaon was
that in the call for said election tue
language last above quoted advising
the voters of the purpose thereoI was "a
too rneaeer: that it was not enough
merely to inform the tax payers that
the hoard would build a high school
somewhere in the district, without
naming cost or price, and two other
buildings. one east of Park avenue
the other west of Sixth street, with
ont fixing any limit as to price. the
circuit court held that the position
asserted by the plaintiffs was not Wen
taken and dismissed their Dill upon
demurrer The supreme court OF APP
peals refused the defendants an an
neal. reciting in its order that the de-
cree of the circuit court was PLAINLY
right. ,..o,.+;on
eiven the tax payers and voters is at
least as explicit as that set forth IN
the school bond case. and approved by
both the circuit court and the supreme
court of appeals.
The second and more serious grou=d
relied upon by the plaintins IN SUP
mort of their prayer for an injunction
is that the ordinance authorizing the
bridge bond Issue does not specify the
amount tosbe appropriated for eacn
nnrpose providedr for by the said or
dinance- E-a .,,...,,o
The statutory provisions applicable
and here to be considered are as Ioi-
Code Of west Virginia 1905. chapter
47A, section 3: