Town of Williamstown v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 03 February 1898
• Citation: 44 S.W. 387,103 Ky. 121
• Parties: TOWN OF WILLIAMSTOWN v. MATTHEWS et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

44 S.W. 387

103 Ky. 121

TOWN OF WILLIAMSTOWN v. MATTHEWS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 3, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Grant county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by N. S. Matthews and others against the town of Williamstown, remonstrating against the annexation of territory to the town. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. W Dickerson, J. H. Westover, and W. W. Points, for appellant.

George C. Drane, for appellees.

WHITE J.

Williamstown is a town of the sixth class, and in May, 1894, passed an ordinance, as provided by an act of July 1, 1893 (being section 3664, Ky. St.), providing for extending the boundary of the town by annexing certain territory described therein. The appellees, being resident freeholders in said proposed annexed territory, brought this action in the Grant circuit court, remonstrating against the proposed annexation, as provided by an act of 1893 (being section 3665, Ky. St.). There are 22 plaintiffs to the action, and they allege that they are resident citizens and owners in possession of land in the territory proposed to be annexed to the town of Williamstown, and that they, with others, do not desire to be annexed, and do remonstrate against said annexation; and they file a remonstrance, a written article signed by 36 persons who claim to be resident freeholders of the territory, all opposing the annexation. The reasons assigned by the appellees why they object to annexation are that to annex the territory will make the town four times as large as its present boundary; that the territory proposed to be annexed is composed largely of unoccupied farming lands; that to annex said farming lands to the town will subject same to taxation for municipal purposes, without corresponding benefits; and that the territory would then be so large as that the town would be unable to properly maintain the necessary internal improvements, or furnish police or fire protection; and because more than 75 per cent. of the freeholders of said territory are opposed to said annexation. To this petition the appellant filed an answer denying all the material allegations of the petition and alleging in reply to the others that the present boundary of Williamstown is too small, and that lots suitable for building business houses cannot he found inside the present limits; that the depot is outside of the present limits, and therefore without police protection; that there is a retail liquor house just outside the present limits, and within the annexed territory, that derives all the benefits of the town so far as business location, but escapes paying license to the town to retail liquors, and, being outside of the limits, is not under the surveillance of the police; and, further, that the parties protesting are mostly engaged in business in the corporation, and live outside, and by reason thereof claim the personal property (being stocks of merchandise, mostly) as not subject to municipal taxation; and probably other matters not necessary to mention. Of the signers to the remonstrance as originally filed, five came in by affidavit, and asked to withdraw their...