Jasper County Democrat, Volume 17, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 April 1914 — AFFIRMS KANKAKEE DITCH CASE [ARTICLE]

AFFIRMS KANKAKEE DITCH CASE

Supreme Court Says There Was No Reversible Error. I . DREDGING WILL GO FORWARD Of Straightening' and Deepening Kankakee River on Northern Border of Jasper County. —■ ■ ; ■ 1 • The decision of the lower court in the big Kankakee river drainage project, which was started in the Jasper circuit court early in 1907, known as the Marble ditch, and which was fought through the court here by John Brown, of Crown Point, who owns many thousands of acres of land on the north side of the river, near Shelby, and others, and appealed to the supreme court -by the remonstrators when they lost out here, was affirmed Thursday, and the improvement will now go forward. This is one of the largest drainage projects ever started in Jasper county. The main ditch extends from the east line of the county over to h point in west about the Illinois line, and the estimate of earth to be removed on the main ditch is 4, 904,628 cubic yards, and on the seven laterals, 147,903 cubic yards. The benefits are estimated at $426,908.44, and the cost at cents per yard, $328,291.11. The report of the viewers and engineer recommends that the main ditch be sold in four separate sections. Lateral No. 1, known as the Cook lateral, is 2,700 feet in length; the Reeves lateral, (No. 2) 2,400 feet; the Lyons lateral, (No. 3) 1,- • r >oo feet; Sandy Hook lateral. (No. 5) 2,000 feet; Hodge lateral, (hjo. 6) 1,900 feet; Morirs lateral, (No. 71 5,300 feet. The preliminary cost of the proposed drainage has ben several thousand dollars, and considerable of this moftey has been advanced by asper County. It is probable that the work will now be started as soon as the other necessary preliminaries can be gone through with. Following is a syllabus of the opinion of the supreme court in affirming the decision of the lower

court: 22141. Brown et al. vs. Powers et al. Jasper C. C. Affirmed. Morris, C. J. Proceeding commenced in April, 1907, after drainage act that year took effect, to establish drain in more than one county to straighten Kankakee river and built lateral drains. The drain commences three miles east of Jasper county line and extends through Jasper into Newton county, with laterals and affects lands in Jasper, Newton, Porter, Lake, Laporte and Starke counties, the greater portion being in Jasper county. The court appointed surveyor of Jasper county and a resident of Porter ocunty, who was not drainage commissioner of that county, drainage commissioners, his was not an abuse of discretion. (2) There was no error in appointing county surveyor of Jasper county prior to his appointment as drainage commissioner by board of commissioners, especially where the court thereafter appointed incumbent commissioner appointed by the board as one of commissioners.!3) Objections to report of an after appointed surveyor, not county surveyor, appointed commissioner on resignation of county surveyor, were not sufficient where surveyor had served without objections and no showing after elected county surveyor ever attempted to qualify, were properly overruled. (4) There was no error in refusing to dismiss cause on hearing of remonstrances filed in report of commissioners because the petition was amended after the filing of the' report, of the commissioners, or for refusal to strike amended petition from files. (5) There was no error in allowing a change of judge after the hearing of one remonstrance by the regular judge by agreement ahead of the date set for trial of the remonstrance, where the affidavit for change was made after the advanced hearing and before date set fpr hearing of remonstrances, and while appellants made no objection to change of judge. (6) "Apellants claim the entire proceeding is void because they assert the Kankakee river, in Jasper county, is navigable. This court judicially knows the contrary.” (7) The court can not consider the question of the destruction of the timber on the banks as required by the commissioners’ report in the absence of the evidence from the record.