The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1918-08-09
SUPREME G6DRaf
rtRpOM MINTOSH COUNTY.
village Of Ashley Plaintiff and Re-

y SAss$fi iksAaRtH#
rROM M,INTOSH COUNTY.
village Of Ashley Plaintiff and Re-
spondent, a 8s,S
Ashley Lumber Company. Defendant
and Appellant. n, h 1.
SYLLABUS: .ll). Under the provisions
Of Paragraph 8 Of Section, Ssol q tne
Compiled Laws OF 1919, Which. among
other things, gives to the board OF
trustees Of villages the power gener-
ally TO establish other measures OF
nrudenc for the prevention or extin-
puishment of fires as II shall deem
n%roner." such village trustees have
thc mower to establish fire limits.
-I2l The courts must presume non
esty and not dishonesty asss FAR az the
actions of village trustees are con-
cerned. d t@4 4
lsl The limits OF . fire district must
necessarily be largely left tothe sound
discretion OF the administrations leg
islative body which 'is authorised to
create It. !.
sions Of 1 village ordinance, aIper-
son erects' q wooden structure within
q fire district and the only penalty
prescribed by the ordinance is, Z hne /,
81 SO for such construction, but the
ordinance also provides that the vii
lare trustees may condemn such
building, II. erected, and order Its de-,
striuctiOn or removal, and when there
il douhfias to the validity Of the ordi-
NANCE and the mower OF the village
trustees to create the samesS the court
in 3 proceeding In equity Y. determine
such question and otter receiving the
Doubt in favor of the village, may or
der the defendant to remove such
building, even though generally speak
ing it is not of such . nature az 10
be g. nuisance at, the common law.
Action to compel the removal OF q
frame building, constructed IN viola
ton OF a village ordinance.
Appeal from the District Court OF
Mcintosh County. Hon. Frank z. Al
len, Judge,
Plaintiff appeals. s
Reversed. Opinion sof the Court by
Bruce, Ch. J. Robinson lnsl and B BIT
M N, ]. ,Gsor !eisAS Ashley. and Y. s.
Lauder. .Wahpeton, Attorneys for
Plaintiff and Appellant. II
Cannon & Lud wigs, Ashley, Attor-
neys for Defendant and Respondent.
T.I9
ORIGINAL.
State Of North Dakota, 'ex rel, City OF
Fargo, Plaintiff,
& VS..
John Wetz, az Assessor of the City OF
Fargo, ct al, Defendants.
Syllabus: ION Rehearing). az
Section 2O2 Of the Constitution OF
North Dakota, which requires that III
two or o amendments shall be sub
mitted in such manner that the elect
ors shall vote for ofIfagainst each Of
such amendments separately. Is not
violated by submitting as one amend
ment a proposed change which Is ,ex-
pressed in two sections, both, how
ever, relating to one general subject
and designed to accomplish one main
purpose.
(2) It is held that the amendments
to Sections ,l76 and ,l79sof the Con-
SlllutlUA, AACll WSAO NUAuAssVN 1920
e%lectors. in 1914 "a .9ne proposition,
krelate TO- the general subject Of uni
ffofinity aof TAXATION ! and that the
amendment was legally adopted.
Original application for Q writ OF
malidamusxsoaH s VI. s:.asSSi &s
Writ denied. Opinion Of the Court
by, Birdzell. j.. Grace, j, c0ncurs In
confirming order denying writ. Rob
inson, j., *dissents.
Spalding & Shure, Fargo. and =. T.
Burke, Bismarck Attorneys for Pain
tiff. II g.sN& s4.
William LangersF. E: packard, and
E. b. Cox, bismarck, Attorneys for
Defendants. Vi
FROM MORTON COUNTY.
Cnuntv re Marion p1ninfiR and re.