
    In re BIG GOLD WATER DRAINAGE DISTRICT.
    (Filed 30 April, 1913.)
    1. Drainage Districts — Constitutional Law.
    Chapter 442, Laws 1909, providing for the laying off of drainage districts, is constitutional and valid.
    2. Drainage Districts — instructions, How Construed — Benefits to the Proposed District — Health—Interpretation of Statutes.
    Where detached portions of a charge are erroneous, when considered alone, but correct when considered with the other parts, as a whole, the charge'will not be held for error; and when it appears, in proceedings to lay off a drainage district under chapter 442, Laws 1909, that the jury were instructed to consider “not only the increased facilities of the land for producing crops, but the benefit to the health of the people who live in the district,” it will not be construed as erroneous because other parts of the charge, taken singly, did not appear to confine the question of health to those living in the proposed district.
    3. Drainage Districts — Findings of Fact by Clerk — Sufficiency—Exceptions — Trial de Novo.
    On appeal from the clerk, proceedings to lay off a drainage district are heard cTe novo in the Superior Court, upon exceptions taken before the clerk, and only these exceptions may be considered (amendments to Drainage Act, sec. 3, ch. 67, Laws 1911), and it is sufficient that the clerk has found as a fact that the allegations set out in the petition are true, if these allegations are sufficient, and distinctly and clearly made.
    4. Drainage Districts — interpretation of Statutes — Repealing Clauses —Purview of Act.
    Chapter 20, Laws 1896, authorizing adjacent owners on Cold Water Creek to clean out and straighten the channel thereof, under a certain method, does not come within the purview of the Drainage District Act, eh. 442, Laws 1909, and hence the exception in the latter act as to “any local drainage law already enacted,” etc., does not apply.
    Appeal by defendant from Daniels, J., at August Term, 1912, of CabarriJs.
    
      Heriob Glarlcson, L. T. Ilartsell, and J. Lee Crowell for 'petitioners. ■
    
    
      Morrison, Caldwell, a/nd II. 8. Williams for defendants.
    
   ClaRK, C. J.

Tbis is a proceeding under the General Drainage Act, ch. 442, Laws 1909. The petitioners, fifty-eight in number, filed their petition, duly signed, and setting out the necessary allegations. The summons was served upon nine others in the district who did not join in the petition. Under section 3 of the act, and after hearing objections, the order was made establishing the drainage district and appointing the board of viewers. Upon objections filed, the clerk confirmed the report of the viewers, and an appeal was taken to the judge. At term an issue was submitted to the jury, upon the only objection filed by the objectors, i. e., “Is the cost of construction greater than the benefits that will accrue to the land ?” to which the jury responded “No,” and thereupon judgment was rendered confirming the action of the clerk.

The proceedings were regular in all respects under chapter 442, Laws 1909, whose constitutionality was thoroughly discussed and upheld by Mr. Justice Hoke in Sanderlin v. Luken, 152 N. C., 739, which has been reaffirmed, White v. Lane, 153 N. C., 17; Trustees v. Webb, 155 N. C., 386; Carter v. Commissioners (in re Drainage of Mattamuskeet Lake), 156 N. C., 187.

Tbe objectors filed two assignments of error to tbe charge. Tbe first of these is abandoned here. Tbe other, that the court instructed tbe jury to take into consideration tbe health of tbe community instead of confining them to tbe question of health in so far as it affected tbe lands within tbe drainage district, cannot’be sustained, for tbe court charged that tbe jury should consider “not only tbe increased facilities of tbe -land for producing crops, but tbe benefit to tbe health of tbe people who live in tbe district.” Taking a detached portion of tbe charge, there might be some ground for tbe exception, but as Walker, J., said in Kornegay v. R. R., 154 N. C., 392, “We are not permitted to select detached portions of tbe charge, even if in themselves subject to criticism, and assign error to them, when, if considered with tbe other parts of tbe charge, they are readily explained and tbe charge in its entirety appears to be correct. Each portion of tbe charge must be construed with reference to what precedes and follows it, and this is tbe only reasonable rule to adopt.” Reading tbe entire charge, we do not think tbe jury was misled.

Tbe third exception is that in tbe judgment tbe clerk failed to find as a fact that tbe lands described were “wet, swamp, or overflowed lands, or lands covered by water, or that tbe drainage of the lands described would benefit tbe public health or be conducive to tbe general welfare.” Tbe court found as a fact that tbe allegations set out in tbe petition were true, and those allegations are distinctly and clearly made in tbe petition. Besides, on appeal tbe cause was tried de novo, and tbe only issue raised by tbe objectors was as to tbe cost of construction, and whether it would exceed tbe benefits. Tbe amendment to tbe drainage act, sec. 3, cb. 67, Laws 1911, provides that appeals in these cases “shall be based and beard only upon tbe exceptions theretofore filed by tbe complaining parties, either as to tbe issues of law or fact, and no additional exceptions shall be considered by tbe court upon tbe bearing of tbe appeal.” In fact, none other was raised.

Tbe objectors’ last exception is that chapter 442, Laws 1909, provided that it should not repeal or change “any local drainage law already enacted or to be enacted by tlie General Assembly of 1909.” It was earnestly debated before us wh.etb.er that restriction ax>plied to local drainage acts already enacted by the General Assembly of 1909 or to those enacted prior thereto. But we need not piass uxion the point. Aside from the fact that this exception was not made before the clerk, and, therefore, under section 3, chapter 67, Laws 1911, was not a matter for consideration on appeal, we are of opinion that chaxiter 206, Laws 1895, which defendants claim is a bar to this proceeding, in no wise covers the ground of the statute under -which this Xiroeeeding is taken out.

Chapter 20, Laws 1895, simply authorized the adjacent owners on Cold Water Creek to clean out and straighten the channel thereof, somewhat upon the system under which our roads have been worked by conscrix>tion of labor. The hands to be 'furnished were to be worked not less than four nor more than twenty days in each year. Chapter 442, Laws 1909, was a new dexiarture in North Carolina. It is the adoption of a system, heretofore successfully operated in many other States, for the cooperation of landowners in the drainage of lands by forming drainage districts, which were to become gwasi-x>ublic colorations, for the purpose of improving the health of the district and the fertility of the lands. Under this drainage district system the lands are assessed in proportion'to the benefits derived. An organization is effected in each district, to execute and maintain a system of drainage. As in every community there are some who oxpiose any xirojíosition looking to eoox>eration for the xiublic health, or any other purpose, this act provides that when three-fifths of the landowners in any proposed district shall sign a petition, notice shall be issued to the others, and if upon examination of the petition, and the evidence, the clerk of the court shall fiad that the law has been complied with, a board of viewers shall be appointed, who shall make investigation and report, with the aid of a competent civil engineer, and upon coming in of the report of the viewers the clerk will hear the objections raised and render a judgment, from which an appeal lies to the Superior Court.

This act is well drawn, and is based upon the experience and the statutes of other States, and up to date more than 100 of these drainage districts have been organized in North Carolina with great benefit to the health, and in the increased productiveness of the lands, in these districts. Together with the increased school facilities and better roads, this new drainage system is aiding vastly in promoting the development of this State. In Florida, the State itself has created a drainage district of 4% million acres. This system operating in many States has by the cooperation of landowners redeemed a vast acreage.

The proceedings herein have been regular, and we find therein

No error.  