(Aftеr stating the foregoing facts.) ■ There is no contention of lack of authority on the part of the county commissioners to build the court-house on the lot donatеd by the land company. There is no attack on the contract as not having been properly awarded to the contractor according to the рlans and specifications of the architect. The sole point of difference is, that the complaining taxpayer is of the opinion that the building should be located in the center of the lot, and should front north or south rather than. east. Therefore the sole question to be determined is, whether the county commissionеrs abused their discretion in selecting the site for the erection of the court-house on the eastern side of the lot, instead of locating it in the middle thereof, and providing.for an eastern instead of a northern or southern front of the building. There is hardly a proposition of any moment to be settled by county authorities but that they are called upon to act on data from which diverse conclusions may be reached. Not infrequently the citizens of the county differ as to the course to be pursued. It is impossible, in our complex civilization, to prescribe the exact manner in which every official act must be performed. Hence the mannеr of doing an act within the power of governing officials of a county must be largely left to their discretion. That discretion must be, from the nature of the case, a broad one, and the reviewing power of the judge of the superior court must be exercised with caution, and no interference had unless it is clear and manifest that the county authorities are abusing the discretion vested in them by law. Comm’rs v. Porter Mfg. Co., 103 Ga. 613 (
One ground of complaint of the taxpayer as to the location of the court-house is that it would destroy its “scenic beauty.” People differ largely in their tastes and their conception of the beautiful. It surely can not be said that an abuse of discretion is shown where the complaining taxpayer differed with the county commissioners and the architect upon a purely aesthetic preference. Another objection to the location is that it would be somewhat further from the railroad, if the site were selected in the middle of the lot, and therefore the sеssions of the court would be less liable to disturbance by the operation of a train of cars. It is undisputed that the lot is distant about a quarter of a mile from the railrоad. The character and frequency of the noises made by the trains are not disclosed, and, upon such uncertain information, it can not be said that the cоunty commissioners abused their discretion on this account. And, lastly, the complaining taxpayer contends that, on account of the windows being located on thе east and west sides of the court-room, the glare and heat of the sun will render the court-room so uncomfortable as to interfere with the transaction of the court’s business. ' There will be a broad portico on the east front, extending practically the whole length of the
Certain witnessеs deposed that the court-house at Spring Place, the former county seat of Murray County, was without a northern and southern exposure, and that the heat of thе sun rendered the court-room very uncomfortable for the citizens. The judge, in ruling upon the testimony, said that he allowed it on the ground that the court-house in Spring Placе was similarly situated as that proposed. The size of the building, the height of the ceilings, whether it was provided with a wide portico, the topography of the country, аnd various other matters which would necessarily enter into the comparison were not given. Manifestly the new
Judgment reversed.