Evening Republican, Volume 19, Number 61, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 March 1915 — SUPREME COURT REVERSES RYAN DITCH CASE [ARTICLE]

SUPREME COURT REVERSES RYAN DITCH CASE

Finding of Court Means Further Delay in Construction of This Big The supreme court has handed down a decision reversing the decision of the lower court in the Ryan ditch. This case was commenced before Judge Hanley in the fall of 1912 and after being partly heard by him a change of venue was taken and T. B. Cunningham, of Kentland, was appointed to try the case and it was disposed of in the lower court. An appeal was then taken by Delos Thompson, Oscar Moore and others. The case was ordered advanced for decision in the summer of 1914 and was argued before the supreme court in November, 1914. There were several propositions involved in the appeal. One was as to whether or not the changing of the original route from one coming down the Gifford ditch to the one finally agreed upon to come down the Pinkamink, was legal and the court has decided that it was proper to change the route, new notices having been given and the petition amended to conform to the Pinkamink route.

The matter most relied upon by appellants for a reversal was the lack of jurisdiction of the court for the reason that Almira Stockton filed affidavit for change of venue which was refused, but from such information as we have at hand the court did not reverse the case upon that ground. The reversal was made upon the ground that the decisions and order of the lower court referring the report back to the drainage commission with instructions to amend same by deepening and narrowing the cut through the rock was an invasion of the powers of the drainage commissioners and that neither remonstrator or petitioner could change the specifications or the court upon his own motion as the right to fix the specifications was wholly in the power and authority of the drainage commissioners and no one else.

Judge Hanley was on the bench when the report was referred back with instructions to make the changes in the specifications, and shortly thereafter a change was taken from Judge Hanley and Mr. Cunnnigham was appointed. It is presumed that when the case comes back that the order of the supreme court to the lower court will je to grant a new trial and that the case will again be before Judge Hanley for trial unless a change of venue is taken and that all persons having remonstrances on file will be permitted to again introduce proof as to their assessments and in fact will result in a new hearing of the case. From the language of the decision it is not likely that another appeal will be taken as the court has decided the propositions upon which the former appeal was based and that un- 0 less some new error occurs that the hearing of the remonstrances in the lower court will end the case. G. A. Williams and Frank Foltz were attorneys for the petitioners and were allowed an attorney fee of SIO,OOO. W. H. Parkison and A. Halleck represented the appellants.

Your Child’s Cough is a Call for Help Don’t put off treating your child’s cough. It not ohly saps their strength but often leads to more serious ailments. Why risk? You don’t have to. Dr. King’s New Discovery is just the remedy your child needs. It is made with soothing, healing and antiseptic balsams. Will quickly check the the codl and soothe your child’s cough away. No odds how bad the cough or how olng standing, Dr. New Discovery will stop it. It’s guaranteed. Just get a bottle from your druggist and try it .. . 2