The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-04-21
THE aARKET HOUSE REMOVAL
A card from Jud &c IgIehart.

ters oil public interest.
In rider to present the subject 10
Wh@5 I desire to direct attention.
aa@s especially the attention Of the
me- nabers Of the City Council, it will be
b est introduced by copying an ex-
tract from the published minutes OF
the meeting of that body last night,
as follows;
Mr.. steinbach presented the following
petition:
70 he common, Council of The CITY Of E0a''s-
Your petitioners respectfully state that
il seems to them that the Market Rouse
on Fourth Street, between Locust ana
Walnut must be regarded by every one aS /
n common public nuisance, and III mas
C0nTf. fhavfng competent jurisdiction) at /
the January term, TO be such a nuisance
and was ordered by said Court TO De re-
moved by the first of March, 1859.
But we understand that the Mayor anu
Civ Attorney, without consulting Lne
Council, have appealed 10 the supreme
We, therefore, pray your Honorable BODY
to oroer said appeal 10 pc olSnllsse11 az
to the market space between Cherry ana |
Oak, southwest of Fourth, and outside OF
Signed by many names.
las. O. Jones spoke in favor of the petit /
On motion, it was laid over till next |
MI Mr.. Hopkins moved that the Council
| ma et on Wednesday morning at O'Clock, |
| to see what ought to be done In the mat
| ter. Carried.
Now. before the Council act upon
this matter. about which there is such
an ensergt neg as to require special
session, it might be we'll for the mem
bers of the Common Council to know
some facts about which some of them
may rot be informed.
II as O fact, That the Council
established Market House and
market space on Fourth Street, In
I84a and wideued said street for the
length of two squares to the width OF
ono hundred feet, making far larger
space for a market than there Is where
it Is now proposed to move the same.
2. tbs fttct, That every property
holder now complaining has become
such since the location OF the market
2 3 Hiso fact, That in the Spring of
1866. when the City Council proposed
to have Fourth Street paved, that
these same complaining property hold
ers appeared before the Council by
e attorney, and proposed that If the
] Council would, at their own expense,
q have said street paved, they (the
property holders) would permit the
; Market House to stand, but other
u wise they would prosecute them for
= nuisance. And that thereupon SAID
= Council passed an order directing ITS
: removal, and that finding this order
= was entered, these same property
s holders executed and filed IN the City
= Clerks Office a paper IN the following
r words and figures:
To The Common Council Of the city Of Evans
Guile:
: The undersigned, being twO-thirds fl
number of all the owners OF the lois anC
A. parts of lots fronting on Fourlh S1Te9I o
u streets (peing the lots and parts of lots OF
e botn sides of said street where the mea
and vegetable market house is situated
" respectfuIly petition the Council TO re
- scind the order for the removal OF SAFE
IL market house, passed by the CouIclI on TN
-, 9gd tiay of A bril-, 1866, and we do hereby
I" consent and agree that s. i'd market nous
4 may remain as at present located, that /
may be maintained and occupied as
ii | meat and vegetable market in such pro
-, / portions for each as the Common Councl
lie rom time 30 time may deem proper, ant
a | ne do hereby certify and declare that on
= | written consent is gwen LOT the purpose
of I-gnliZtng said market house. agreeable I
the provisions of the second section OF Al
er act OF the General Assembly of the stat
/ of Indiana, approved March 7th, 1901, en-
d titled IAN act to prevent market house
It from being built upoa the streets OF town
~ and cities without the consent OF two
It f,1trdS of The owners of |. is on such street
and 10 authorize the removal or the same.
j. Nlehtern, 3713 front feet, northwest la
- Of Lot No. lS6.
in Henry WaIdschmidt. s71z fl ont feet, soutL
-, east half OF Lot No. lS6.
Ou Mrs Anna BOfandick, T2 front lee
ch southeast half of Lot No. Isl.
Heinrich Schentrap, 1874 front feet, soutl
KS, | east half of northwest half of Lot NO. ~
:, Fred. Hofnlaan, 1917 front feet, northwet
Gil | quarter of Lot No. 1917.
i 4iES. e. B. Lockwood, 87% front feet. southea
10 half OF Lot No lsS.
III charles McJohnston. 371z front feet, nortl
west half of Lot No. 1873.
lat Vickery Brothers, 70 front feet, the who
he oi Henry len Weigers, 25 front feet, third SUI
no division of Lot No. 200.
NC John whitehead, 25 front feet, seeon
ar subdivision of Lot No. 200:
John c. Henson, % front feet, first subd
5r, vision OF ]. ot No. 90.
N Alien G. Aallock, northeast thre
he - VIM v H. P. stoddard, l58 front feet. par
N A. His a fact, That afterwards, no
we withstanding the Council desiste
ed from the carrying out of said order
n, removal. yet these complaining pro-
erty holders, by their attorney, inst
at tinted a criminal proceeding again
he the Mayor and Common Council Fl
maintaining a nuisance, and that upC
the hearing of such cause in Septeu
her. 1866, the Market House was,
de- this court of 2" competent jurisdiction
1r- declared nuisance, and it's remov
a ordered.
,or 5. But IL as a fact equally true tn
- the Supreme Court, court of ape
oSU late, as we'll as conlpeteat" jurisdi
D. ton, reversed the case. and 1t va
ave thereupon, abandoned.
ose 6. 1t as a fact That during the ye
1868. some ten or twelve thousaI
dollars of the peoples money W
spent in paving the market squar
)ir- without objection from the cOmplal
i've ing and injured property holders.
-. Z. 1t as q fact, That so soon as the
20 injured Individuals had the street
Ia front of them paved free of expen
did to them, they discovered that t
)ek Market House was a nuisance, and {
,os suit referred to in the petition Il
night was the result.
~ 8. 1t Is q fact, That the Court
nat Common Pleas did not, apo11
led merits. but upon a demurrer settl
The M lust such state of facts as
-. LAWYERS on both sides saw proper
P'' present upon paper, decide that I
up Market House was nuisance,
see directed its removal.
to 9. II IS a fact, That the City Att
ody new did, with the assent OF the May
W., prosecute an appeal to the Supre
Eourt. and that unless the app
rec i dismissed, the case. will be dgt
and rerersed. and will have 20 be abb
the doned by those who brought IT,
,,I1 ! baforn