COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 873

Generally.

Where county commissioners act within their jurisdiction in opening and closing
roads, mere errors or irregularities in their proceedings are reviewed only upon
appeal to circuit court, and do not give rise to relief in equity. County commis-
sioners held to have jurisdiction under this section and secs. 2 and 13, and that
their jurisdiction, when once attached, is exclusive. This section construed in con-
nection with local act of 1900, ch. 685 (applicable to Baltimore county). Jenkins v.
Riggs, 100 Md. 436.

The provisions of this article are not repealed by a local law unless the two are
in conflict. It is the duty of county commissioners to have as many appointees as
are necessary to keep up the bridges and supervise the roads, and they must see
that their appointees do the work. Act of 1874, ch. 274, relating to Baltimore
county, does not expressly or impliedly repeal the provisions of this article. County
commissioners, held liable for injury due to their failure to repair a bridge. Balti-
more County, v. Baker, 44 Md. 9.

The powers and duties of county commissioners under this section, contrasted
with the road system introduced by the Shoemaker law—see art. 91, sec. 43, et seq.,
particularly sec. 58. The two systems are distinct and independent and cannot be
combined. Anne Arundel County v. United Rys. Co., 109 Md. 385.

Since county commissioners constitute a corporation, the alleged pernicious activ-
ity of one of the members in relation to a matter to be acted upon by the board,
cannot be imputed to latter. Jay v. Harford County, 120 Md. 51.

What is a " public road "? State v. Price, 21 Md. 454.

The control of the court house vested by this section in county commissioners,
cannot be given to the court crier. Prince George's County v. Mitchell, 97 Md. 336.

The county commissioners being a corporation, embezzlement by their clerk is
within the scope of art. 27, sec. 129. Denton v. State, 77 Md. 529; State v. Denton,
74 Md. 517.

This section, and secs. 2 and 13, referred to in upholding the constitutionality of
art. 91, sec. 46, et seq. Bonsai v. Yellott, 100 Md. 500.

For a case involving the act of 1853, ch. 239, sec. 1, see Anne Arundel County v.
Duckett, 20 Md. 475.

This section referred to in upholding constitutionality of an act authorizing
county commissioners to appoint a game warden to be recommended by Game and
Fish Protective Association. McCurdy v. Jessop, 126 Md. 321.

This section was repealed as to Prince George's county by the act of 1900, ch. 346.
Blundon v. Crosier, 93 Md. 359. (See also act 1910, ch. 90.)

Cited but not construed in Prince George's County v. Commissioners of Laurel,
51 Md. 461.

An. Code, sec. 2. 1904, sec. 2. 1888, sec. 2. 1888, ch. 467. 1906, ch. 249.

2. They shall also in their respective counties have control over all
the public roads, streets and alleys, except in incorporated towns in their
respective counties, and make such rules and regulations for repairing,
cleaning, mending and perfecting the same, and providing for the pay-
ment of the cost of the same, as they may deem necessary; they shall also
have power to levy a tax or license fee upon dogs and bitches owned, kept
or harbored within their respective counties, and to provide for the en-
rollment of said dogs and bitches, and the collection of the tax or license
fee thereon; and out of the tax or license fees so collected they may pro-
vide for reimbursing owners of sheep or cattle for losses sustained by the
killing of sheep or cattle by dogs and bitches other than those owned, kept
or harbored by the owner of said sheep or cattle; they may make all nec-
essary rules and regulations for allowing and paying bounties for the kill-
ing of hawks, owls, crows, minks, foxes, wild-cats and other and like
destructive and harmful wild animals and birds; they may make all nec-