Milford chronicle., 1919-11-07
CAN WIDEN ROADS
BEYOND THIRTY FEET
JUDGE CONRAD HANDS DOWN AN I'M
PORTANT DECISION AT GEORGE
TOWN LAST SATURDAY.
DAY PETITION IS REFUSED
FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO GRANT
DAMAGES TO Mr.. DAY CAUSE OF
PETITION OF REVIEW.

g TEllllUN UF kERlEM.
j Georgetown, Nov What is believ-
"a To be one of the most important
u aeclslons given by any judge of the
otate Courts for many months and
one which viii forever set to rest the
contention that has been made in
many quarters that the laws of this
: State did not give jurisdiction for
widening and Strengthening public
roads TO distance of more than 80
feet, was handed down on Saturday
afternoon by Resident Judge Henry
: c. Conrad in the case of Frank L. Dav.
a farmer residing near Hebron church.
who petitioned for a review.
The petition for review grew out of
the failure of the commission appoint
ed a few weeks ago by Judge Conrad
to condemn the right of way on the
Georgetown-COkesbu route, which is
to be constructed of concrete. refusing
70 grant damages to the petitioner
Ihe petition sets forth, "That the
return of the original commission be
SET aside for gross inequality and in
efulty, no damages having been allow
ed him; that the said return be set
aside for the reason that the said com
mission exceeded their powers in Law
ing out said public road to the width {
OF 80 feet, or in widening the course
OF the existing public road 10 the
width Of 40 feet" v
II the court upheld the petition of p
Day it would have meant the block I
ing OF the road building program {
Whleh Is now being carried on in Sus- q
sex county and the State, for it would S
nave been impossible to condemn q
property and procure a right of way r
in excess of 80 feet. b
Judge Conrad in his opinion saws: n
The petitioner contends that there is b
no authority in law for the widening p
of public road in Sussex county he a
yond 30 feet and that the action of the n
Resident Judge in appointing a com Il
mission to widen the public road from W
Georgetown to Cokesbury Church. with lii
instructions to widen the same to 40 in
Ieet was contrary to law and therefore eI
ultra wires II
The first enactment touching the er
laying out of public roads in Sussex an
county is found in Vol. l of the laws ca
oG Delaware and fixes the width of mi
public roads at 80 feet, and that width ev
u road has been maintained in all the WI
Intervening years, the codifcation of pa
ne laws in 1923, 1852, 1895 and 1915.
III stating that in Sussex county call III
'uDiIc roads hereafter laid out shall
'e 30 feet wide"
As early as 1873 a general law
vas passed giving to the Court of CIR
ieneral Sessions Jurisdiction to Law ten
ut public roads and bridges through wa
Ut the State, and to change and va ed
ate same. In 1911 concurrent mris- wo
lction was given to the resident asso- +
ate judge within each county to Law the
ut public roads and bridges and to lun
lden, change or vacate same For arr
le nrst time the word widen is used the
10 my mind the insertion of the ena
ora widen is significant. 1t was evil the
shtly inserted for purpose 1t must the
reason be interpreted to mean urg
methlng. The width OfNpublic roads bill
be laid out in the three counties 4
I'd been fixed by express statute for case
ore than century. Here is a word A
at used in its ordinary sense means. by
increase in width, to extend and Graz
on what was it to operate? The New
bic road of the county If the fix vitet
3 OF the width of public road when Lib
d out at 30 feet was to establish if S.
alterably at that width, then WHY Tru,
Ie the resident judge authority to were
den what could not be Widened? and
is view of the matter seems to be audi
reasonable. Therefore full author TIL
to change and alter had been given den,
~ then insert the word widen un-
s the legislative intent was to give II
re latitude to the judge, a greater
cretlon IN the conduct and manage Tn
mt of the public roads? send
he law seems to settle beyond aues- TOwl
a rfraT 10
sex county shall be 30 feet wide. Hanl
" roads laid out shall not be less place
n 80 feet, and this provision was 1919
doubt founded on public policy. that Town
Dad of lesser width than 30 feet priva
I'D not accommodate the public bedsi
hc-and does the simple enactment Fitzp
all be 30 feet wide preclude the ford
! that 80 FEET was merely the and
i width at which the road shall as vi
laid out, and leave open the aues- took
Tor later day as to an increase Harri
width that time and circumstance to p
ht suggest? night.
nd further does not the enactment ford
9ll, wherein the resident Judge is health
n authority to widen public roads Wilmi
'ey the reasonable and convincing Hanly
ression that while a road must be pany
out at least 30 feet wide, it should
eft to the judge to say when the
h of the road should be increased?
Hess the authority to widen an
to cases of this kind it would be In Il
au letter' ana II Is only by an in lie Ad
'eIatioh such as l seek to give an irr
rehuers II OF any force or effect. self w
statutes must be taken together Milfor,
tne Two reconciled if possible that it
prayer OF the petltioner is refused. to all
iuOI1y Z