The weekly tribune and the Cape County herald. (Cape Girardeau, Mo.) 1914-1918, 1916-05-05
Shows Judge Kelly Drainage
District and Not County
Should Build Spans.
LEGAL BATTLE ROYAL
CONSUMES TWO DAYS
Court Hears Evidence and Law
and Then Takes Case Under
Amusement.

l
County and the lawyers representing
the Little River Drainage District,
who argued for and against the dis
solution of the injunction issued by
the late Judge Ranney, restraining
the drainage company from cutting
the county roads until the question of
who shall build the bridges is decided.
Probate Judge Edward D. Hays and
J. Henry Caruthers, Prosecuting At
torney, represented the County, and
r. B. Oliver ST. and K. B. Oliver Jr.
appeared for the Little River Drain
age District.
While the divers made vigorous
fight upholding their contention that
the injunction should be set aside, the
efforts of Judge Hays and Mr.. Caruth-
ers impressed the court and, according
to those who listened to the argu-
ments, the County made Il stronger
case in favor of making the injunction
permanent than the opposing counsel
did in their efforts to have it dissolved
Prosecuting Attorney Caruthers
opened the arguments before the court
by outlining the case, explaining the
benefits to be derived from the drain
age project and appealed to Judge
Kelly to preserve the rights of the
people.
K. E. Oliver Jr. made strong argu-
ment in behalf of the drainage dis
trict. He outlined the project, detailed
the benefits that it would bring to the
district, and urged the court to set
aside Judge Ranney's ruling. He cited
cases from Indiana, Illinois and Ne
braska to show the general principle
| of the drainage law, and how these
were applicable to the questions be-
fore the court.
Judge Hays took up the argument
of Mr.. Oliver and used the Illinois and
Nebraska cases, as cited by the drain
age lawyer, to show that in those two
states the drainage districts were
compelled to restore the roads that
the drainage bitches destroyed.
r. B. Oliver ST. made a lengthy
argument on the drainage law of Mis-
souri,, and the decision of the State
Supreme Court, which he declared up
held his contentious in the present
case. The Supreme Courts decision
was based upon Macon County case
which was almost identical to the con-
test between Cape Girardeau County
and the Little River Drainage District. |
The Supreme Court found for the
drainage company, and Mr.. Oliver de-
clared that it was the duty of Judge |
Kelly to do likewise.
Judge Hays shot the opposing law
yer's contention to pieces, figuratively |
speaking.
There arc two points in this case"
began Judge Hays, upon which we
base our contention that it is the duty
of the drainage company to build
thesebridges. In the first place, the
drainage district never acquired a
right-of-way, which is the only colat-
eral at issue.
"But while we do not believe that
the court was altogether justified in
its decision in the Scott County case,
which was based solely upon the ques-
ton of right-of-way, we are willing
to grant the drainage district that
right"
Mr.. Hays then referred Judge Kelly
to a recent opinion of the Attorney
General of Illinois, bearing on the
same question before the court. Mr..
Lucey, the Illinois official, sustained
the position that the cost of building
the bridges must be borne by the
drainage district, and not the county.
He also offered decisions to substan-
tiate his contention.
Judge Hays then entered into a
detailed discussion of Senator divers
principal point-the Supreme Courts :
decision unfolding the drainage COM
pany in the Macon County case. {
"That case" said Judge Hays, "was |
decided upon the law that was in {
vogue at that particular time. That
opinion was written in the Supreme |
Court in 1913, or several years after
the case had it's inception in Macon /
County. The court did not attempt to +
the law that was enacted in t
1913, or some years after the Macon
County litigation was begun. r
"But the drainage law, upon which t
the Little River Drainage Districts a
hinges, says nowhere that | v