Imperial Valley press., 1921-03-25
August T. Taecker of Braw-
lew, Acting for Himself as
Taxpayer, Demands That
Road Contract Be De-
clared Void.

The long threatened suit to stop
the building of county highways was
filed in the Superior court of Imperial
county today.
The complaint for an injunction was
filed by E. R. Young and C. B. Spen-
Ger, attorneys, of Los Angeles, for and
on behalf of August T. Taecker, a
rancher of Brawley, acting for himself
as a resident and taxpayer of the
county.
The complaint demands that tenn
porary injunction issue to restrain the
contractors, Peterson, Dillon and Pat
terson, from further proceeding with
the work now in hand, and an order
to show cause directed to l.. F.. Shaw,
w. J. Best and j. L. Travers, members
OF the highway commission; and G. w.
Barton, county treasurer; w. D. Carey
county auditor; and J. Roy Adams, R.
A. Holt, George Pulliam, w. S. Brooks
and j. Ralph Anderson, as members of
the board Of supervisors, why they
should not be enjoined and restrained
from approving any demands on the
county treasury in favor Of the con-
tractors, Peterson, Dillon & Paterson,
or from issuing to or paying any de-
mands of said contractors under and
in pursuance of the contract entered
into with themby the board of super
visors of the county.
The temporary injunction and order
to show cause were issued and date
ho
time convenient for the same to be
heard. The defendants have ten days
in which to make answer.
The complaint which is chiefly tech
nical takes up thirteen closely type
written pages and sets up "a causes of
action, which stripped of all legal ver-
biage is as follows
After reciting the official positions
of the defendant county officers and
the fact of the co-partnership of the
contracting firm, the complaint sets up
that on May "a, 1919, the then high
way commission composed of Fred 5.
Lack, L. ]. Thomas and Casey Abbott,
submitted to the board of supervisors
it's report and recommendation for a
highway system for Imperial county
and recommended the calling of an
election on the proposition of issuing
bonds to the amount of $1,5OO,OOO for
the construction of such roads. The
said recommendations, the complaint
says, were adopted and approved and
the recital of the fact of the adoption
of the bond proposition, the issuance
and sale of the same is made.
Thereafter on January 6. 1920, the
then highway commission submitted a
report to the board Of supervisors COW
ering a portion Of the highway system
of the county, the report consisting
of locations, surveys, plans, profiles
cross sections and specifications of
roads proposed to be constructed; des-
cribing in technical detail the Braw-
ley-Calipatria road, the Imperial Holt
vile road, and the CaleXico-El Centre
road.
The complaint then recites that the
board of supervisors ordered on Aug
3, 1920, the county clerk to advertise
for bids for the construction OF said
roads, the bids to be submitted in
single units. This order is described
as uncertain and indefinite and not ir
accordance with law and asked for bids
for roads not mentioned and described
in the report of the highway commits
sion of January 6, 1920, and that bids
were invited not in single units ano
not in accordance with the specifica'
tions on file in the office of the county
clerk and different also from the spe'
cifications on file in the office Of the
highway engineer; and further thai