The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1875-04-29
THE WATER WORKS SUIT.
City Of Canton Us. Louis GGhaGtGr ct al.

Some five weeks ago we published in
the DEMOCRAT the petition filed in Court
by Messrs. w. A. Lynch and w. w.
Clark, attorneys for the city, bringing
Suit against Louis Schaefer for an account
ing of over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOL
LARS which came into his hands during
his management of the construction of
the Water Works. We have heen watch
ing the files of Court with view Of copy
ing his answer to publish also, that our
readers might see both sides. The first
we saw of it, however, was in the Lou
schaefer- Repository of last week,
We give both petition and answer that
our readers may be able to compare both
documents
1t will be seen Mr.. Schaefer states he
placed the funds in bank and not in the
City Treasury He cites no law for this
little matter. OF course, it amounts to
saying he kept the money in his own
pocket
The City of Canton, Plaintiff,
Louis schaerer Daniel Worley and Fe'i''on'
Jacob Hawk, Defendants.
The Plaintiff the City of C nton, a mu-
nicipal corporation to wit: city Of the
serond class of the State Of Ohio, duly in.
corporaled under the laws thereof com.
planning of the said defendants, Louis
Schaeler, Daniel Worley and Jacob Hawk,
says:
That in the year 1868, it was determn.
ed by the Council of said city that water
works should be constructed for said city
That on or about the 26th day of April
1869, the said defendants being three
members of the City Council of said city,
received and accepted the appointments
Committee on Water Works" of said
Council, with authority from said Council
to dispose of such an amount ofthe Wa.-
er Works bonds Of said city as they deem
ed requisite for the commencement and
prosecution of the construction of said
water works, and with authority to make
contracts as provided by law for work and
mat erial to such an extent as they deem
ed proper and necessary for their COM
pletion.
The said defendants acted as said com
mittee from the date last aforesaid till
Nov. 1st, 1869, from which time they con-
tinued to act as agents of the plaintiff
substantially as they did during the time
aforesaid but under the name Of "rrus-
tees of Water Works" having been elect
ed such Trustees on October 10Th, 1869
Said Louis Schaefer for the term Of three
years, Jacob Hawk for two years and
Daniel Wofley for one year from Nov. lst,
1860, and they continued to act together
as such trustees until April 18th, 1870,
when said Louis Schaeier resigned.
That on the 18th day OF June, 1868, the
council of said city passed an ordinance
entitled, "An ordinance to effect a loan
for Water Works in the City of Canton
Ohio" authorizing the issuing of bonds
of said city to the amount of fifty thous-
and dollars, bearing interest at seven per
cent. per annum, payableannually, which
ordinance was ratified by the popular
vote of said city, as then required by law
That on the'l9th day of April, 1869, the
council of said city passed an ordinance
IL oresaid whereby said bonds were to
bear an interest not exceeding ten per
cent. per annum, payable semi-annually.
That on the 7th day of June, 1869, said
council passed an ordinance entitled can
ordinance to effect a further loan for the
construction and completion of the Can
ton City Water Works" authorizing the
issuing of fifty thousand dollars of the
city's bonds, bearing interest not exceed
ing ten per centum, payable semi annu-
ally.
That on the Goth day of January, 1870,
said council passed an ordinance entitled
"An ordinance authorizing the issuing of
bonds for the enlarging and improving of
our City Water Works" providing for the
issuing of ten thousand dollars of the
bonds of said city, bearing interest at the
rate of seven per centum per annum,
payable annually. The plaintiff furth-
er complaining, says that the de-
PENDANTS, as the agents and representa-
tives of said city as aforesaid, calsed to
be executed under all the ordinances
herein referred to, and to the tull amounts
authoIiz d thereby, and between the 18th
day of April, 1870, negotiated and dis
posed of a large amount of said bonds.
That on the 10Th day OF June, 1869, said
defendants reported to said city council
that they had negotiated and disposed OF
bonds to the amount of $40, 500, to wit: OF
the per cent bonds the sum of $4,000,
and of ten per cent. bonds the sum of
$3S,500
That on the 18th day of July, 1869, said
defendants reported to said council that
they had as such committee, negotiated
and disposed of bonds of said city in the
additional sums following, to wit: of ten
per cent. bonds $45, $50, and had contract
ed for the delivery of the seven per cent.
bonds aforesaid to the sum of $l4,S50, in
payment of materials contracted for said
works, making in all to that date the sum
of $l00,500 of said bonds negotiated and
disposed of
That the said defendants rendered no
further report or account of their trans
actions, either as Committee on Water
Works, or Trustees of Water Works, un-
til long after April 18th, 1870, to wit:
about the 18th day of Dece... Der, 1870,
when they reported to the council that
they had before April 18th, 1869; negotia-
ted bonds to the amount of S97 300 and
had delivered for materials and property
bonds to the amount of s. 800, accounting
in all for the sum of $l05,S00, but their
said last mentioned report does not ac-
count for the bonds to the sum of Sl4, $50
charged to them in their report of July
10Th, 1869, as contracts for materials, and
does not show the disposition made there
of, nor does said report show the amount
received by them for the bonds negotia-
ted by them, nor the rates at which they
disposed of them.
The plaintiff, because Of the confusion
ofsaid reports and from the want of a
full, clear and correct account from the
defendants, cannot aver the exact amount
of bonds negotiated and disposed of by
said defendants nor the amounts received
therefor by them during the period afore-
said.