The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1943-10-07
COURTS DECISION IN MAY
CASE GIVEN IN ENTIRETY
Continued From Page One)

any lltUGN tNpSHUeu OH his property
or for his benefit.
So far as the divisibility of this
contract is concerned, it is divisible
by law because the incoming Board
of County Commissioners, such as we
have in this case, would have been
just as culpable, of an ultra wires act
as the outgoing Board was if the in
coming Board had continued to eX-
pend money on this property.
The Defendants contention in this
case is that there was a valid con-
tract and one within the power of the
COUNTY Commissioners because they
say that the consideration for the
entry into this contract was the right
of the County Commissioners for the
period of four years to take limestone
from an undeveloped quarry, rather
limestone from an undeveloped de-
post, for the period of four years
from the time this alleged contract
was entered into.
Now in the first place, this was GER
tainly a very informal sort of con-
tract entered into by two of the three
members of a Board of County Com
missioners on a public street of the
city of Oakland and never acted upon
at any formal meeting of the Board
of County Commissioners. Under this
circumstance, greater degree of proof
from the Defendant is required than
would be if this had been formally
entered as it should have been upon
the records of the County Commits
sioners, SO that the public would have
some means Of knowing what the pub
lie business was that was being trans
acted by its Board. That practice
could not be commended under any
circumstances.
1t is undisputed that one member
of the Board of County Commission
ers knew nothing about this contract
until after the work was under way.
But assuming that this was valid
consideration, and there are circum-
stances under which it might be,
which are not present in this case, we
wish to point out the reason given by
the Defendant, and in this he was
sustained by two of the outgoing
members of the Board of County Com
missioners, that this was done in con-
sideration of the right to use that
limestone; they said so; and if those
were the only facts in the case, it
might influence a decision in this case
if it had been properly entered into
In the first place, it is very cues
ti0nable whether or not this is valid
contract under the Statute of Frauds
1t required more than a year for it's
performance. It had four years to run
before there could be performance by
both parties, according to the evil
dence of the defendant. and, if so, it
had to be in writing. There was no
writing in this case. Williston on Con-
tracts, Rev. Ed, sec. 495.
In the second place, as matter of
fact, Mr.. Browning testified to the
consideration in this case and the rea-
son for it, when he said on the witness
stand that this was to put through a
real estate development of thirty
lots on each side, which had been
projected by Mr. May and his pred
ecessor in title, Mr.. McIntire. The
route of this road was not determined
by the County Commissioners at all
or the road engineer; the road engi-
neer didn't hear about it until the
Job was under way; the route was de-
cided by one person, and that was the
Defendant, Mr.. May. Nobody else had
anything to say about where the road
should 90, not even the road engineer,
and one of the County Commission
ers, Mr.. Browning, made the state
ment-we don't recall that Mr.. Geiss
man said anything about it, said he
hadn't been on the property at all
after the work was started.
The primary purpose OF the build
ing of this road was to get a road at
velopment of the Defendant. AS a
sideration for this so far as he was
concerned and that he was being
saved the cost of three or four, maybe
five thousand dollars because this
road would have cost, when COM
pleted, at least five thousand dollars,
and he was to be benefited to that
extent 1t didn't 90 into the stone
quarry; it led in a direct route to the
land of the Power Company, and
there was no pretense in this case on
the part of the Defendant that it was
intended to get stone from the quarry
located on it's property at the end or
southwest terminus of the road. So
that we find as fact in this case
that it was not in consideration OF the
use of the limestone in a quarry
there was already road testified to,
in this farm, that was nearer to the
alleged quarry and much more ac-
cessible to it, so that we find that
there was no consideration except
that the County Commissioners were
doing a personal favor at public eX-
pense to the Defendant in this case,
which means that he has to pay.
Now we have examined this bill
with, we think, all the care that we
could give it in limited time. We
have time cards here that show in the
middle of November, when it is dark
at 500 O'Clock in the morning and
dark at 500 o'clock in the afternoon,
sometimes the grader would work
twelve and the operator thirteen, and
sometimes they both worked thirteen;
sometimes they worked twelve hours
each, and we find that an S-hour day
is about all you can reasonably work
out of doors at that time of year and
that making such an allowance we
find a reduction of 25 per cent in
that. We have no definite informa-
ton about the hours that were actual
Iy put in by the trucks on this
property. There was testimony that
they were shifted from one place to
another during this time. We have no
information about other items, but we
assume that if there was a 25 per
cent mistake or overcharge in the
largest items, that there is probably
25 percent overcharge in all of it
and that this man. although he has