The Little River news., 1921-06-11
ANOTHER SUIT IS FILED
 AGAINST DISTRICT NO, '
E'ans and Evans for Plaintiffs File Long Complaint Setting Forth
 Numerous Allegations

hoi 'he pldlHClHS set out Tn the complaint The complaint was filed With the chancery clerk, and a hear Ing will be had before the chancerv court at date not yet named. The compliments named in the complaint are: F. K. Davis, Jay Hoffman, G. E. Ludlow, Henry Boyer and F. r. Stroud. all from the west end of the county. The defendants mentioned are: D. A. ; Cook, w. D. Waldrop, s. D. Natteson, commissioners of the district, Frank Horner, L. B. Anderson, R. L. Boyer, Jr, assessors of said district, Parke Engineering Co.,, engineers in charge, c. A. Reese & Co.,, road construction contractors; Midland Bridge Co.,, steel bridge contractors; Spoher & Son, concrete contractors; J.. R. Pierce, sheriff and collector, P. M. McCord, county judge; R. D. Huddleston, coun- ty clerk.
 The document sets out that in OctO- Der, 1919 Act 292 was passed creat- ing district for the purpose of build- ing certain roads, which it described and that the assessments of benefits an aggregate of s1,615. .OOO29. was unjust unfair, unequal, discriminatory, ex- cessive and confiscatOry.
 It alleges that the act is void be- cause it includes two different road improvement projects instead of one as required by law, because of the in- definite description of the proposed improvements, and because of the un- restrained power of the commission CTS.
 It is alleged that 1t violates Section of the state constitution and quotes, No person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due pro- cess of law" It also quotes the 5th amendment to the federal constitution. which is practically the same. It also alleges that it is void because 1t vio- lates Section 25, Art of the state constitution.
 It sets out that on the 24th of Sep tember, 1919, the county court assess ed and levied on real estate other than telegraph and telephone lines a tax sufficient for the sum of $1.S74,51O. es- timated cost of the improvement with interest at 10 per cent and a margin for current expenses, the tax to be di- vided in installments, and from 1920 to 1924 inclusive the rate is 3.6 on the face of said benefits, producing $5S,- 147.24 per year. From 1925 to 1939 the rate is 66, producing $106,603.2S per year. It sets out further bonds were issued for one million dollars to make Improvements contemplated in the act. and instead of making im- provements as contemplated built lat- erals, ' in all, improved unlawfully, wrongfully, for the convenience of the commissioners and the assessors and their special friends, and not for the convenience of the general public. It alleges that the commissioners have wasted and misappropriated trust funds in the sum of many thousands of dollars.
 With regard to depository for the funds it sets out that under the law the commissioners are authorized to select a solvent bank as s-deposftory with such bond exacted as the commits sioners may deem best, the commiss- toner to take oath that he will not be interested directly or indirectly in any contract made by the board It says that the commissioners selected three Repositories, and among them the Bank of Foreman, of which bank Con- missioner Cook is and was stockholder, director and president; that the bank has received and lsed large portion of the funds to it's great profit and ad- vantage, and to the great profit and advantage of Cook.
 It alleged that the commissioners spent $24OO on c gravel bed, which was abandoned. and that nov the land owner was suing the distr1oA tor $6OOo alleged damages.
 The complaint allegee tflat She com nissioners unlawfully paid Rose. Hsm- ipgway. Cantrell & Loughborough. a firm of Little Rock laWye5s. o1S00 for their opinion as to the validity of the bonds, the advice being sought at the instance and at the requess of the band buyers and for their bene1A
 They allege generally that the com missioners have wrongfslly vested. paid out large amounts, which can be ascertained by an accounting under the direction of the court of chan cery.
 Again they allege that the commiss- 1 toners before any plana sDsstdcsuons or estimate of cost of inURusana nd been made contra1pa yt1e Oo N1ke Engineering co. V1p - - te