ir-WIN V. TOWN OP ONTARIO. 6l �ferent sources from the others, before the affidavit and con- sents were filed together as one roll, A different atate of facts appears in this case. Here, it appears that the affida- vit and each consent, and each proof of the signatures to the consents, was filed on the same day on which the whole roll containing all of those papers was filed as a whole. If they were all filed at one and the same time, each separately, and then as a whole, they were, in judgment of law, attached together, as much as if physicially attached by material means. This case is, therefore, brought fully within the decision in the Phelps case, and to which I adhere, and it is unlike the Smith case. �The consents being thus to be considered as being the consent referred to in the affidavit, are found to be consents to borrowing the money and. issuing the bonds, and subscrib- ing for the stock. �The fact which the statute says is to be proved by the affi- davit of the assessors, and which affidavit it is made by the statute their duty to make, is the fact that the consent in writ- ing, proved or acknowledged in the manner prescribed by the statute, bas been obtained of persons owning more than one- half of the taxable property, and of a majority of the tax pay- ers. This includes not only the fact of consent, and of con- sent in writing, and of consent of the requisite persons and of the requisite majority, but that the consent bas been proved or acknowledged in the prescribed manner. �The affidavit of the assessors in the present case, in con- nection with the consents, fully compiles with the statute, and must be received in this case as proof to the commissioners of everything required for the issue of the bonds. It con- cludes the question, as against this plaintiff as a honafide holder, as to the form of the proof of the signatures to the consents, because it finds the fact that the proof was accord- ing to the provisions of the statute. It was, therefore, not open to the defendant as against this plaintiff to contradict any of the statutory facts sworn to in the affidavit. It was not open to it to object to the sufficieney of the affidavit, or to the Bufficiency of the proof of the signatures to the consents, ����
