Show CASE DECIDED D IN La OGDEN DEN Howell Renders a Ision Judge Ju Judge Da In the School Consolida Consolidation lion tion suit ACT NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL f 1 cro or cher Inners Corned CO I Their In j Action Sp to the News JA A decision on tho t l to n Jan or of of defendants In the tho case demurrer et al F W V et al was rendered this Stratford b by Judge JI J A Howell In ra fa favor or of defendants Included In the tho vor were tM the members c i the We Weber Weber ber county school hoard and the coun cOlln county treasurer nerd thu tho decIsIon Is or of Im Imp Importance ty the tho e as tousling touching p of f Tho suit was brought for forthe action taken the purpose ot of lie n or of Weber county count countIn b by the schools ot of 5 whereby the tho 19 Is In JulY or of Ogden City City that consolidated Into one un und r rd were d r tM the dr or of II a board or of education tion The demurrer was based upon the th ground that the complaint farts facts to constitute not sine did or of and the conten contention lute tute a r muse US tion ot of the he plaintiffs Was that the pro whereby the Weber county came Into to being arc In counsel for tor tho contend th that the let or of the In ques js is unconstitutional for tor two r a afons fons FIst r t st that It contain r other sub e n Ire are p sec i In Its Ite t title i tle j Ar M g 6 Seg Se 22 and secondlY that thc then does r or amend previous legislature or ar sections e a is s of II the tae thereof without reenacting the sam samo a aal them at length Art 6 al ari publishing og St Se 2 Judge Howell In Ins Ius decision Is not long lone In nt at the conclusion that the rut Ill or of the providing for tor torL forn L t n r lOn or lit schools q c hoots S I n certain har es e Is not unconstitutional and t th most considered by him Is fw to 10 the board Of oC county com comI I II acted under the authority ot of 10 a or previous or or creatIon of school districts THE CONTE The argument of at counsel for tor the w as 19 gone sone Into exhaustively by the court The In effect were as follows That while this section gives the hoard of county power to 10 create subdivIde or tp 8 hool districts It nowhere authorizes the I Ie hoard board to abolish them and that therefore Its action In abolishing all the hC s hunt districts was null and void Ir Is 18 mat insisted b by counsel for th the plain lere that assuming the board It had l f to abolish all the school d de dI t ri q I In iho h t It CU d not have the e to create r a school district I out j rr Of the territory In which Vh the h abolished j s school lR were ant lying I outside or of Ogden City without 1 n h tl tion Fo fa to do by n o Ruch territory as had tho ere citro anti LillI custo Y ot I ot ago or the ot of tile ti CO t fusty nt BOARD DIAno HAD BAD THE UT T Upon thew th sC points Judge gays The logic ot of these Is ut 1 It the tho various passed ll hy by the hoard board of at county commissioners commissioner on mt the tho rd ot of July Juh 1906 are to 10 bo be considered cred H seems to the tho court however that they should not be so treated that they nil all bo construed for tor Itis It ItIs Is obvious that the they were all ull with n single purpose namely to or organize nil all ot of the county lying or of Ogden City Into ono one school district So Eo con them what difference does doo It whether the board Ilm p ply I sahl All the districts O Ogden City Me are c cinto Ou s o I I d nt hl into Inlo one district or It said Bald All the tho school districts ut Og Clan Ien City are hereby end out of oC the territory In which they formerly e existed Is created ore district The act of oC school districts lIec the abolition ot of those formerly existing and even If ito III melI men tint lion or of their had been mode they would nevertheless havo been abolish abolished ell by y the con The rho mere fact then thell that they the were ware ex express press presly n invalidate thIs action ot of the board of at county commis stoners when the obvious purpose or of It was Tf If instead Of pass passing Ing the tho motion to nr first t nod the motion to create te afterwards the tho hoard had 11 sec the motion to create Ort first and to It woul not seriously he bo contended that the or of the tho r and what dons the order or of orthe the motions make The hoard ot of loners had the Iho undoubted ed richt In ht with Iho rasa 1110 of oC th the Sl school district lI or at Da Davis vis county the hoard lit fit ers of Davis county 11 16 Utah tn In hr one one th to on late o nil the school lIs of oC tho county Into one 11 DUTY OF After Arter info Inlo each phase or of the case In detail Judge Jude Howell sn sass 8 The Tho court having arrived at the Iho con conclusion conclusion then that the provid Ing for count county school districts or of the first OrRt chase clas Is constitutional that the V county school district Is II valid and and that It hoe the I school to b ring bring It wIthIn the th r It C nI l list that the th nt n f county commis was wall In I It tho county board or nt created b 1 tho board of county out Is II n a h 11 gaily Ally con public that its Ih I actions action in the tho scone ot of It its I tv are hinting noon the and the public lh t said hoard hr W t vc a II toll fled In n to perform Its duties In upon contracts to erect I school etc and th that t It le Is the I dul duty ot of the county trenI treasurer to turnover turn turnover over to the tho said hoard board the school funds In hi his The demurrer or of the defendants to the complaint ot of the should therefore be sustained and It if the tho pin plain plaintiffs In tires tiffs elert to stand their the he action should be dismissed |