Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1878-10-03

ing two mills in excess of the amount al
lowed by law" IF such thing ever oc-
CURED, have no recollection of it, and |
consequently l am surely of the opinion |
that the Statesman must be mistakenly |
never gave any such advice. 1t is true |
that the City Council, having made levy |
of two per cent, or something like that, |
for the widening and improvement of |
Long street, and our Auditor, having re- |
fused to place the same upon the tax du- |
plicate for collection, for the reason that, |
in his opinion, the Council had exceeded |
its powers in making the levy, / and an
other attorney, at the request of the COun-
Gil, instituted a proceeding in mandamus
to determine the validity of this special
tax, and it is true that the decision of
the Court was against its validity, but no
one doubted the good faith ofthe Council
in its effort to improve this street, and to
defray the cost of it in this way. Lawyers
do not always gain their cases. We did
not succeed in this, but | have never
| heard that it was imputed to me, or my
| associate, that we betrayed our client or
were false to the city's interests.
4th. As to the contract of the city with
| the Messrs. Hastings & Beeson for the
| improvement of High street. Some days
ago THE DISPATCH published the facts
| connected with this improvement and the
contract therefor, and it is not necessary
| now to repeat them, especially in this
county and city, where they are so we'll
known. Suffice it to say that prior to, at
the making of the contract, and during
its performance, I acted as attorney for
the contractors and not at all for the city,
as every one connected with the City Gov
ernment we'll knew. 1t is equally well
known that the contract was prepared by
Henry G. Noble, Esq, acting in cOnjunc-
ton with the City Solicitor, an officer
elected by the people, that this contract
was performed under the direction and
supervision of the Civil Engineer of the
city and its performance accepted by the
duly constituted authorities of the city,
and in all matters connected with this
contract and its performance the authori-
ties of the city were advised, not By me, but
by other attorneys.
The contract having been accepted by
the city authorities as performed, the city
as it was bound to do by the terms of its
contract made and delivered to the con-
tractors, assessments upon the abutting g
property to pay the contract price. Some
of the property owners refusing to pay
their assessments, as one of the attorneys
. of the contractors, brought suit to recoV-
: er them, and the Court, His Honor Judge
Green, held that the contract was illegal
and invalid, and not binding as con-
tract upon any of the parties to it. New
ertheless, as the property owner had re-
ceived the benefit of the labor and mate
\ rials of the contractors, to the extent OF
such benefit, the property owners were
liable. ...-. -
1 1t is true that myself and others, fol
? the purpose of endeaVOring to aid an ole
friend, Mr.. Beeson, did sign the contrac
. as guatantees for its performance by the
l contractors. If the decision of the court
e alluded to is sound, it is apparent that
: there is no liability on the part of The
sureties. If neither of the contracting
, parties were liable upon the contract, W.
know of no rule of law that would holt
= the sureties liable. The sureties are al
: residents of Franklin county; [ believt
all are responsible, and if the city shal
see proper to bring an action to fix thei
: liability, [ do not suppose that any one o
: them will be mean enough to plead tn
% statute of limitations.
o 5th. AS to the North High street i'm
. provement, the Statesman exhibits its un
: pardonable ignorance, for it is, suppose
st generally known in the city that thl
n improvement was contracted for an
made by a commission of citizens electe
by the persons owning property abuttin!
. upon the Improvements, under the pro
" visions of what is commonly known a
n the Penn Act, and all the City Council ha
S, to de with it was to pass the ordinance au
ID thOrizing the owners of the property t.
- elect the commission and make the i'm
- prOvement. l gave no opinion to tn
is Council that this act was Constitutional
III on the contrary, in this respect, the Coun
IN Gil were auVlSeu Oy all eminent law IlFI
. of the city, and not at all by me. 1t
III true that the Supreme Court here decide
r that the statute authorizing the improve
IS, ment is unconstitutional and absolutel
e- void, and it is true that some of the owl
y ers of property abutting upon the in
g proVement here brought their actions
a restrain the collection of the assessmen
On made to defray the cost of the improv
ment, on account of the unconstitutiOl
ality of this statute, for the reason tn
.of the cost of the improvement exceeds tt
market value of the property upon whiC
IL it is assessed, and amounts to its cOnfisc
lat tion, and for other reasons claimed
us make void to the assessment. Some
M these actions I have brought as attorne
~ and other attorneys of the city have COZ
I'll menced others of them. OF those WI
have so brought actions are the wife al
brother of my esteemed friend John
'or Thompson. To have brought these a
or tions, as attorney, under the circur
- stances, is neither malpractice nor u
lP- professional conduct. The case is clear
be distinguishable from the Staudt, Kalbac
er- Mercer and Hiram Pugh cases.
LORENZO ENGLISH.
COLUMBUS, Sept. %, 1873.