Page images
PDF
EPUB

The following are the securities now in the possession of the Commission, viz.:

15 Municipal Renewal bonds of $1,000 each,.
82 Renewal Sewer bonds of $1,000 each,. . . . . .
45 Refunding Sewer Renewal bonds of $1,000
each,

$15,000 00

82,000 00

3 Refunding Sewer Renewal bonds of $500 each, 13 McClure Avenue bonds of $1,000 each,...... 18 Charles Street bonds of $1,000 each,

45,000 00
1,500 00

13,000 00

18,000 00

[blocks in formation]

ANNUAL REPORT

OF THE

*City Solicitor

REPORT OF THE CITY SOLICITOR.

CITY OF ALLEGHENY, January 11th, 1882.

To the Honorable the Select and Common Councils of the City of Allegheny:

The following report of the legal department of the City for the year 1882 is respectfully submitted:

During the year I have filed 68 liens for delinquent taxes and assessments.

I have collected and paid over the following amounts, viz.:

[blocks in formation]

Three suits have been brought against the City, viz.:

J. P. Padden and wife vs. the City, No. 97, October Term, 1882, to recover damages claimed by reason of the abandonment of the widening of West End Avenue.

John J. Roth vs. the City, No. 27, October Term, 1882. No statement of the cause of action has been filed in this case, and I am therefore unable to state its nature.

The Pennsylvania Company filed a bill in equity against the City to restrain the City from arresting the employés of the Company who were attempting to excavate on Superior Run Avenue for the purpose of laying additional tracks.

The Court granted a preliminary injunction, but upon condition, however, that the Company should build, at its own expense, a bridge running from a point north of the present tracks to Preble Avenue, and also a causeway to the bridge from Market Street. The Company has constructed under the decree in this case a temporary structure; the character of a permanent structure to be erected hereafter is to be determined on the final hearing of the case.

The following disposition has been made of cases depending at the date of my last report, viz.:

Storge vs. the City. Action for damages resulting from the bursting of a water pipe on O'Hara Street. Tried, and a verdict rendered against the City for $100.

Mueller vs. the City. Action to recover damages by reason of the detaching of a ferrule on Hazel Street. Tried, and a verdict rendered against the City for $250. I have made a motion for a new trial. The verdict was small, provided the plaintiff was entitled to recover anything, being merely the expenses incurred in relaying the supply pipe, but under the statement of the late Superintendent, under whose administration the difficulty arose, the plaintiff was not entitled to anything.

Two cases against the Kountz Ferry for wharfage was tried, and verdicts obtained for about $1,500.

In the case of Gilliam vs. the City, which was an action for damages resulting from a fall-over a tree stump standing on the pavement on Federal Street, in front of the City Hall, and in which the plaintiff had recovered a verdict for $300, I took a writ of error, which was argued in the Supreme Court. The judgment was affirmed.

The case of the Union Insurance Company vs. the City, an action to recover back taxes paid under protest, was tried, and judgment obtained for the City. The plaintiff took a writ of error to the Supreme Court. The judgment was affirmed in that Court.

The cases of Bolster, Fuchs, and Artz, the Butchers' Run flood cases, were argued in the Supreme Court, and the judg

« PreviousContinue »