The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1918-10-11
MANCHESTER
OFFICIALS LOSE
Judge THOMAS DECIDES THAT LAYING
or CURBS AND CUTTERS THROUGH
THE TOWN WAS UNNECESSARY AT
THIS THINE.

1 Judge Thomas handed down his
opinion in tine case 0f IVY Wesley HOfF-
aGher and Rachel E MaSenhnimeF,
against the town 0f Manchester
which was brought last summer 10
prevent tha laying Of curbs And gut
ters at the expense 0f ahutting pro
lperty owners. Mr. HOffacker and
\ Mrs. Maaenheimer claimed that thU
action 0f tha town in doing work
purely in the nature Of improvements,
and nOt one Gf necessity, was invalid
a. the policy Of tine Government was
! to discourage unnecessary work, ana
that proper legal notice had mot been
given them in order to enable the town
TO 10 the work at the expense or the
property owners.
Testimony was taken last summer
and the case has been held under ad-
\ viSeEMent since The Question of the
right of Mnnicipa pality in war times
70 make improvements and put the
cost On dndivfduaIE against their pro
test was new one, the War In-
dustrles Board had passed a Resolu-
tl6l requesting all towns tO avoid
making improvements, not essential,
! Ivy order that money and labor could
he released fOr War purposes.
Judge Thomas decided against the
town On the ground, that the notice
#lwen was Illegal, and held that Ehe
Resolution of the War Industries
Bgard passed last spring and the let
lt@MH from the Council of Defense tO
tlld Defendant. amounted to mo more
than = request not to do the work.
saying:
assuming that a resolution 0f the
War Industries Beard prohibiting the
prosecution 0f work Of tMe kind mem
toned in this case, and poaitiw@ nr-
der given by = local agent 0r re-
preventative 0f said Board in pur-
6nanca thereof, would have the force
or law and warrant this Court in
restraining a violation Df its pro
Visions, III is quite clear that neither
the resolution OF letters referred I'd
were intended To have that eject.
The purpose df the resolution was t0
discourage and not to prohibit the
prosecution Of enterprises Df the kind
therain referred to, amd it cDnfers
upon this Court nO auth0ritK t0 -
yar4fu municipal UfHHcers FROM tIfs WN-
ercises of powers lawfully granted tO
them Public policy is an uncertain
and indefinite term, ana courts hesi-
tate tO apply the doctrine except in
clear cases, Aged Mems Home W..
Pierce, 100 Md. 500"
Since this case was instituted the
War Industries Board has taken steps
w correct the invOcative character Of
it, previous order, and OH September
3rd passed Resolution declaring
that its previous order was intended
tD prevent Tine character Of work
questioned, and that 10 new building
project, should b. undertaken unless
i'd WaS in the public interest, for OR
such essentially that under existing
conditions it should not be deferred,
Aim appli licatiOn has now tO be made tO
the Council of National Defense for
approval Of new work before permit
will be granted and mo ONE Az allowed
to supply building materials to any
one, who has not this permit, ex-
cept for repairs.
The effect of this order, IL that nGf
work of a private character can W
done unless III is essentially neces-
sary, and is direct and explicit re-
cOgniticn 0f the principal involved
in the Manchester case, which is tine
MESL# @MN OILY 0M@ MAA%1 % L1A@ AaMEAA @1
have been asked To uphold the rulings
of the War Industries Board. It hmg
attracted much notice, the Council of
Defense and the War Industries Board
-at Washington having watched its
course
Guy W. Steele represented W..
HDffacker and Mrs. MaSenhelmer and
a. a. Weant, to- Defendant M