EASTMANJ7; coumrr or CLACKAMAB. 27
were now held together by acartilaginous formation, which in all prob-
ability will ossify intime, and produce a good arm.
The plaintiff at the time ofthe accident was engaged in taking orders
for portraits in crayon,aud· pastel, which he makes, and had received
8800 worth of the same, that he was unable to tinish on account of his
injuries, without the aid of solar prints and hired help, the cost of which
consumed his profits; and he paid surgeons for attendance during the
illness consequent on such injuries $125. ’
Onthe oral argument of the case, one of the counsel for the defend-
ant made and insisted on the point that this is not- a lawful countyroad,
andtherefore the county is under no obligation to keep the bridge in
repair. The statute (Laws Or. p. 721, §§ 1-3) provides "that all county “‘
roads shall be underthe supervision of the county court," and no such
` road shall be established except by its authority. “Al1 applications for
* "? .* Vlocating county roads shall be by petition to the county court,
* i * ·- * signed by at least twelve householders of the county residing
in the ’vicinity"‘of said proposed road, specifying the termini and inter-
mediate points of the same. -An application for a county road shall be
accompanied by proof that notice thereof was posted at the place of hold-
ingthe county court, and also in "three public places in the vicinity of
said proposed road thirty days previous" thereto. In this cased the
- proof of notice indorsed on the petition states that one notice was posted
*"on the court-house door, and three in the vicinity of the road " de-
scribed in the petition, but does not show that such notices were signed
by any one, or that the places where they were posted are "public"
places. * The contention of counsel is that it should not only appear that
the places where the notices were posted are "public" places, but they
should be named, so that the court and persons interested in the matter
can determine or ascertain whether they were properly posted or not.
In Minwrd v. Douglas C0., 9 Or. 206, the supremecourt held that no-
tice of such an application is invalid unless signed. by the petitioners,
and suggested that the proof should designate the places where the no-
tices were posted. See Bums v. Railway Cb., 8 Sawy. 543, 15 Fed.iRep.
177.`, But the question in ~M'mard v. Douglas Cb. arose between the lat-
ter anda private person whose land was sought to be subjected to the
easement of a county road, by the judgment of the county court in a pro—
» ceeding of which he claimed he had not legal notice. In the case under
consideration the county wants to escape or avoid its responsibility as
curator oflcounty roads, on the ground that aroad that was in fact es-
tablished by its court more than 10 years ago, and has ever since been
recognized by it and the inhabitants thereof as a lawful county road and
public highway, is not dejwrc a county road, because, forsooth, in estab—
tlishing it, the county court acted without legal notice to the persons
through whose lands it is laid,‘not one of whom, however, has any com-
plaint·’to make in the matter.· I In my judgment this is bad law and
worse morals. The county having formally laid out and opened this
road, and built this bridge thereon, and thereby authorized and invited
the public to travel over it, is estopped, when any person seeks redress