Show I I Commissio Commissioners ers i ers May Build I Con COli t House Housel Judge Eugene Eugne gave his de- de de decision decision Saturday i r i the cas case of DKeith D Keith l B Barnes Bunes nes vs 1 axis is IS county et al use o 0 a memos r tl a as alI a I public building i 1 is legal his honor ruled consequent he upheld honorI the I county d to th tho complaint of M 11 1 Ml i Barnes who ho hor r I sought an yi io to o restrain re-I re re- re remodeling re remodeling modeling the the- pr se sent court com t house an and building an a 1 di thereto I Barnes Barnea contend contends 1 Itoi his complaint l I that Davis Divis count county fed feda ed eda a subterfuge to a new c cy court rt house the statute permitting C counties to erect memorials He is list su implied implied in m the complaint that i ini l t ting ing the con con- contract con tract for a r build the project the county had cis fee ee ed its budget wIthout first firt firs t pies f n u the proposal to a vote of af the thc t ra raThe r The irs ers rs contended m in demurring to the complaint that the building though its would be u used ed edCor for Cor the practical of ar a court courthouse courthouse courthouse house and contained contained only one room set aside forir for ir w war r veterans was svgs a sUItable Judge Pratt idled flIed riled in effect that use of the bU g as a court house or for my any otlie other public purpose did not nat detract from its is as a suitable me- me me 1 H Ho He further hed he'd he d that the Imph- Imph implication implication cation cabon of e ng the county debt limit lImtt was as a m of record that could have been et t forth in the com com- complaint complaint plaint and was i ot of On these grounds he sustained th commissioners de- de demurrer de demurrer demurrer to that In giving his hi i decision the Judge said ud f j I That t a gem al or an intended memorial may rave practical value l I as asell well sell as value it seems I does not take l lOUt i id out of the class oft of I ls nor an it be said that because that practical alue value is phy- phy physically phy II I more mare event ev evident ent than is lS the sentImental salu that the county I r I commissioners commissioner have hate ha e abused their dis- dis discretion dis discretion in m the matter in m selecting a of the two t as a memorial memorial ial lal The use nd Wd OO cwi LP of a building as a Court OUI t hue house is not ab abhorrent abhorrent abhorrent to the idea of that building being a memori memorial 1 nor is it necessary that a part of oft that building be set aSIde for the u use le e of the veterans to constitute it a Memorial memorial Admitting plaintiff's plaintiffs then that all th allegation of plain tiffs tiff's complaint ire re true the Court can not say tha that clearly the proposed edifice is not a memorial or not In Intended intended intended tended as sue The sentimental value in m memon Is s seems to be based more mare upon the a and beauty of I theIr i than upon then practical use a ar cl as tto Va these thee el elf ments there thele ma mass ma mabe be i t very wide slide d dif dif- difference dif ference of or n In the opinion of the Court then It t would take a mu much h stronger set of f ct to show an abuse of discretion upon up n the part pait pal t of the Cam Commissioners As As- Asto to the qu stion tion of the alleged illegal ss the Court invites counsels c attenh attention n to the case of Building Ass s M School District 43 Utah espe 1 ally the part found on pages 70 70 The principle therein set out fhe he Court Curt believes behoves ap- ap pl ap-pl TJI cable able here here is no direct al legatIOn allegation that the th matter was as not sub submitted to the oter a as required by Constitution Sec 3 of Article k 14 of the tion hon The allocations here ing pei information rug mg to that mat er r are upon informs tiara hon and belief rid nd appear to be b cora con con conclusions the the of reasoning from the fact hat the Commission CommIssion- Commissioners CommIssioner ers er had entered to such a contract The Court agrees with plaintiffs plaintiff's interpretation of th the Murray CIty case Dated July 1930 EUGE EUGEME E PRA PRATT TI Judge |