Jasper County Democrat, Volume 6, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 May 1903 — ABOUT THE COURT HOUSE. [ARTICLE]

ABOUT THE COURT HOUSE.

ItMM of Into root Oat bo red la tho OWfcos Hf Corridor* of tho County Capitol. No marriage license baa been issned since May 12, and but four have been issued this month, i —o— KThe Kentland quarentine on Rehesel&er lawyers and court officers has been raised, and Judge Hanley has been holding court there this week. fsOharles R. Weatherhogg, architect on Jasper county’s new court bouse, was given a judgment for $1,449 and costs against this county, in the White circuit court this week. 4 —o — Both Commissioners court, Board of Review and Township Trustees meet Monday, the latter to elect a county superintendent. Up to date no avowed candidate has appeared against Mr. Hamilton, the present incumbent. V —o New suits filed: No. 6503. Frank Spencer vs. May Carson et al; action to contest will and set aside deeds. Transcript from White county. No. 6504. John Dean vs. Alfred C. Robinson; suit for possession. Transcript from White county. —o — A rehearing in the case of Seiler vs. state ex rel. has been denied ;by the supreme court. This is the case wherein the legality of county auditors, and county treasurers drawing extra pay for services on the board of review was in question. In the late decision holding that they were entitled to such extra pay, two judges dissented, and it was thought that a rehearing would be granted. In denying a rehearing the court held: 1. The grammatical sense and structure of sentences in a statute will not be adhered to iu interpreting the same if inconsistent with the declared purpose of the legislature, or if so to do would render the law inconsistent and absurd. 2. The words “who shall each be paid" etc, in section U 4 of the tax law, as amended in 1895 and again in 1903, dearly refer back to all the members of the county board of review, and the county assessor, auditor and treasurer are each entitled to S 3 per day for serving on said board as well as the two appointed freeholders. The Gillam gravel road case of Gifford vs. board of commissioners of Jasper county, was affirmed by the supreme court Tuesday. In affirming the decision of the Jasper circuit court, the court held: The finding and judgment of a board of commissioner* in a gravel road proceeding under sees. Burn*, to the effect that the petition for such road is signed by the requisite number of qualified freeholder* 1* conclusive upon all person* to whom constructive notice wa* duly given whether they received actual notice or not, and one who failed to object to the sufficiency of the petition until after the finding and judgment of the board on that question and the appointment of the viewers, cannot afterward have such finding and judgment reviewed by , certiorari.