The Rice belt journal. (Welsh, Calcasieu Parish, La.) 1900-19??, 1918-03-22

At the opening of the session OF the
district court in Jennings Monday
morning Judge Winston Overton, in
lengthy and very carefully prepared
decision of the custer suit brought
against the nine police jurymen OF jeff
erson Davis parish set aside the charges
against eight of the jurors, but re-
moved Juryman Hathaway OF ward
two on the Citizens committee charge
that he received pay far the use OF
team in which he was part owner.
In the decision none of the 26 charges
brought against the police jurors relat'
ing to the handling of the funds from
The good roads bond issue or the build
ing of the roads were upheld by Judge
Oyerton. The charge against George
Hathaway related to a transaction
which happened in 1915, before the bond
issue was voted.
The first charge brought against the
police Jurors was for tha employing of
Col. Stevens as highway engineer the
Colonel not being licensed or register
ed, which act was forbidden by Act zOO
of 1914, This act places the penalty on
the engineer thus hired and not upon
the body hiring him. In summing up
this charge the Judge says: 80 lar as
the record discloses, the facts upon
which the police jury acted, lead me to
believe that they were under the I'M
preston that they were acting in the
best interests of the public, and that
there was no Intentional disregard OF
any law of the state"
2 The next charge was for failure u
exact a bond from the Alexandra
Gravel company. In summing up this
charge the opinion says: "notwlth
standing the failure OF the Alexandra
Gravel Company to furnish bond' anu
t notwithstanding the fact that the
gravel shipped was below the sixty pei
cent metal requirementtthe police Jury
although they rejected some OF I'M
r. cars continued to receive the grave
from that company. Their reason fo
Il 50 doing was that after careful lnves
tipation they found it was the best the!
Y. could do for the money and that II Wa
le in the interest of the parish to contlnu
to receive it, S to abandon the contrac
and 90 elsewhere would cost NOR
money than the parish could afford
X; nav. | think the record as Whol
sunports them in this. 1t certain
does not overthrow their judgemef
nor their sincerity"
It was also charged that the polle
iury sanctioned the putting OF lobioli
nine into the bridges on the highway
"The evidence is conflicting as
whether loblolly pine was used IN al
of the bridges. 1t would appear TO
the fault of the engineer, though
81 81 Inspected the logs from which it is Sd
" to have been cut"
'c'' ut is also contended that the poll
IN Il iury expended $4,000 for wash'
-" gravel the purpose being to ma
JOG I'D for the deficiency IN I
~ gravel furnished by the Alexandl
u Gravel company. The evidence sho'
lay however that they spent much sma
or sum than this-something IL
81 1000. The washed gravel bought "
: purchased to be used on tho roa
where the travel was heavier, esrec
'or " upon the roads as they approach
49,, parish Site" =.
DILL Charges IA and Is of the plaint
'e" petition concerning the routing OF
"A0 OF the improved roads, and the aoand
OH, !, ing of improvement of three One
'lou are not well founded as being aroitf'
and political. The routing ana
nroyinp of these roads are matt
= wholly within the discretion or
police luries."
at is further contended that the
90 PENDANTS ought to be removed Deca
thew permitted j. N. George & Sou
violate their contract with the pa
w. on the Lake Arthur Jennings ana
~ .,ennings-Elton road as relates
90 drainage as relates to the thlckl
q and width OF the gravel; as relate
a the rolling OF the gravel as lald' al
x the terracing of the shoulders
~ Bermuda grass. The evidence Sd
~ that the drainage is not complete;
% the gravel, at least in many place
20 not of the required thickne SIS, ana
"a both roads are in an incomplete
y dition. However, it also appears a
~ dainty, that neither road has been
" tered as complete or accepted b.
Cd nolice Jury as complete, and as COZ
e ING with specifications. Until IL
"a done unless the proof shows that
- was purpose to defraud the publ
e which the defendants were pdftl
" some way, by accepting as compl
50 manifestly incomplete road, and
% they were frustrated by the Insult
q Of this suit, thereis no cause
~ moyal from Office. THERE is MOI
x PROOF"
y Between January 1915 and DC
CD 1914 If is charged that George