Jasper County Democrat, Volume 22, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 June 1919 — RYAN DITCH CASE REVERSED [ARTICLE]

RYAN DITCH CASE REVERSED

Cause Comes Back for Another Long-Winded Trial. The supreme court last Friday reversed the decision of the Jasper circuit court in establishing the Ryan ditch, one of the largest drainage propositions ever started in Jasper county and which is expected to drain large tracts of land in Walker, Gillam and Hanging Grove townships. The reversal of the lower court means that the case comes back for another twist in our court and some changes made in the Issues. This ditch has been pending for 10 years and it will eventually be built. Many farmers effected have lost during these years several times the amount of their assess-1 ment* in damage to growing crops and in non-productive land. Thg 1 litigation and expenses incurred have also cost many thousands of dollars, as the case has been in the higher courts twice and will probably go there again. Following is a syllabus of the opinion of the court in reversing the case: x DRAINAGE, REMONSTRANCES, PRIMA FACIE CASE. 23462. Austin O. Moore vs. John P. Ryan et al. Jasper C. C. Reversed. Willoughby, J. (1) This is the second appeal of the same case, the former appeal being reported as Thompson vs. Ryan, 183 Ind. 232. After the case was reversed the cause proceeded and appellant filed a remonstrance on the ground that the assessments of benefits were greater than the benefits to the land. On the trial of the remonstrance the qnly evidence to support the assessments was the report of the ditch commissioners, while appellant tes- • tlfied that the assessments were 1941.30 greater than the actual benefits. The court holds that the presumption and prima facie case made by the report of the commissioners disappears upon the bringing of any substantial evidence, and can not stand against the Sworn testimony of the appellant as to actual benefits, the court saying: “The presumption growing out of a prima facie case remain® only so long as there is no substantial evidence to the contrary. When that is offered the presumption disappears and, unless met by further proof, there is nothing to base a finding solely upon it.” The coufrt quotes from a case saying that the jury either took the report of the commissioners as evidence to overcome the testimony of appellant as a witness or ignored the testimony of appellant, neither of which they had a right to do. (2) The report of the commissioners' provided that the contract should be let under a provision that the contractor should maintain the portions dug until the whole ditch was completed and accepted and that the ditch coinmissioner should retain a sufficient amount of the contract price to insure the cleaning out and maintainance of the ditch until fully completed in all portions. The court says that it will not rule on the question of the authority to provide definitely that a certain percent should be withheld for such purpose, but that a provision for leaving the amount to be withheld in the discretion of lhe ditch commissioner. did not make the terms definite as required by law, and that the report was contrary to law. <