The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-04-29
JUDGE POWDERS
 OVER ROAD CASE

Continued From Page One)

Continued From Page One)
 frL.l C. H. Hearn, member of the board of revenue of-Sumter county, and $. Anderson, mayor of Epes, both de- claring that John A. Rogers had been active in securing the building of the road from LivingstoEto Gainesville, and that his efforts hadsa large effect in getting the Sumter county board of revenue to participate.
 An interesting feature of the report of the engineer, Davis, was that it rec commended that nine miles of the road already built between Livingston and Gainesville be abandoned. Judge Will kinson stated that when federal aid was given on the Livingston Gainesville road it was under the old law providing for building of post roads, and that since th' passage of the new law limiting federal aid to the ' per cent system, no federal engineer would approve the Gainesville routing. The report of w. X. McCalla. assistant state highway engineer. was characterized by Judge Wilkinson as more in the nature of q political than an engineering report i; and with reference to the alleged per sonal i1te:est of Chairman Rogers, he declared that it is common law rule tb no man may sit in Judgment on his own case.
 Harrison Argues E
 Judge Wilkinson was followed by W. Harrison for the Boligee citizens, who argued that the law did not intend to invest unlimited discretion in the high way board, and allow it to be guided solely by "itn own sweet will and pleasure in making locations.'
 "I had thought that the heory of the public be damned, had passed away" Mir. Harrison statedsJ He declared that if the highway cohfmission has un- limited authority beyond control of courts to locate roads, it might declare that the most feasible route for road from Montgomery to Mobile was by way of Opelika, or New York.
 Where d mans treasure, there is his heart alsO,' he stated in speaking of the charges that the personal interests of the chairman of the highway body MT. Harrison also declared that the money spent by Sumter county in building the road from Livingston |, Gainesville was later, refunded by the state. 'F
 Judge J. J. Mayfield, delivering the concluding argument on behalf of the highway commission, declared that the constitution did not create the highway commission, that it is purely creature of the legislature and that a mere ref erence to the commission in the consti- tuition did not affect it's status in this respect. He stated that the present com mission did not locate the route by Gainesville; that neither Mir. Rogers nor Mir, Suttles owns land in Greene county, in which the proposed road is to be built and that charges of cOllu- sion are purely conclusions of the pleader As for the title to the act of 1923, Judge Mayfield asserted that in his opinion it could not be improved upon.
 'In my opinion, if these complaintants had known the law, or if their counsel had known the law. they would not have brought this suit." Judge Mayfield declared. His argument concluded the hearing, and the case was taken under advisement. The court was furnished with lists of authorities cited, but it was announced that no further briefs would be filed in the case.
 Constitutionality of the act of 1923 creating the three-member highway