Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-06-30

Continued From Page One.D
members Of the State board of health
the court agreed with the contention Of
the demurrer that the complaint does
not state facts sufficient to constitute
cause of action against the defendants
Judge Chamberlin disposed Of three
questions involved in this case as fol-
lows:
First: Has the Legislature delegated
certain powers TO the State board OF
health?
Second: Are the rules prescribed
by the State board Of health IN
delegating certain powers, reasonable
and in conformity with public policy.
Third Does the standards Of
efficiency as fixed in an act OF the
Legislature OF March 3. 1915 nullify in
anyway or displace the powers given
the board under the act OF Feb. 10,
1891, which created the board, and
also by the act of March $1,000, which
enlarges and defines the powers OF
the board
The court answered the first two
questions in the affirmative" stated
Judge Chamberlin. The court holds
that the rules of the board of health as
adopted are reasonable and in conform
ity to public policy
The answer to the third question is
no. meaning that the act Of 1918 does not
nullify the original powers as given to
the board under the original act which
created the board. The plaintiff claims
that the 1915 act nullifes and dis
places the fundamental powers given TO
the board.
"The plaintiff contended that he had
certain rights by virtue of patent articles.
The court holds that a patent right car
ries no presumption Of superior right car
or adaptibility for special purposes, but
that patent ia merely a special right OF
the patentee to manufacture and sell,
said the judge.
COURT AGREES WITH
STATES CONVENTIONS.
In sustaining the demurrer in interest
Of the defendants in the case against
County Auditor Fesler and others, the
court agreed with the contentious made
by the State.
In this case shipp sought to enjoin
the treasurer and auditor from paying
field examiners for examinations made Of
public Offices, contending that II is a
violation OF the State constitution ia
that 1t is required that all expenditures
Of public money be set forth In the
printed acts OF the Legislature.
THE court held the payment Of the
field examiners was out Of county funds
and not State funds" said Judge Cham
berlin, aud that the Supreme Court has
upheld the constitutionality Of the get
creating the State board Of accounts IN
the case of Ransbottom rs the State OF
relation or Robbins, IT'S Indiana, page
g.
Rnnhrar for
plaintiff contended that the original act
IN creating and defining the powers Of the
State board Of accounts, has been rem
dered null and void because of certain
amendatory acts having been passed by
the Legislature. which failed to properly
designate the original acts in its title
and so is null and void.
The court held on this point. that the
acts in question are not amendatory
acts, but are separate acts"
In the EschLach case the validity Of
the act creating the board OF accounts
was attacked, with particular reference
given to the power Of the State board of
accounts to cooperate with the board Of
health in requiring the previous sub
mission to them OF the plans and speci-
hcations incident TO submitting bids
for heating and ventilating equipment In
old and new buildings.
HOW COURT RULED
IN EsCK3ACH CASE.
THE court held In the Eschbach case"
said Judge Chamberlain, that the board
of health and the board Of accounts may
acquire by rules the submission OF plans
and specifications by contractors bidding
on the heating and ventilating equip
ment before She contract Is let and also
that the two boards is not required to
divulge any information TO the plaintiff
or any one else before letting contracts"
Mr.. Shipp in his complaint in this par
Hcular case charged that the State board
Of accounts wrongfully promulgated GER
tain rules regarding heating and venti-
latlng apparatus aud require public Of
icers to disclose {, the defendants in
advance all, recOmen 1ations, proposals,
plans and specifications in respect to
heating and ventilation. The plaintiff al.
leges this advance information is sub
mitted in secret to the defendants.