, 1879-02-17

y. li&ul NFAs hulttuALlf 1ab# AUX
TIE CITY-ATTORNEY.
Ills ANNUAL REPORT 70 rnE COUNCIL.
City.Attorney .Tuthlll has prepared for sub
n,itslon to the City Council bis annual report Of
the City Law Department, containing detailed
statement Of its work Ia tic various courts,
State and Federal, for the year ending Dec 81,
1873, with statement Ut all civil suits NOW
pending in which the city is interested, mud
which ara now receiving the attention Of tho
Department An examination Of the report
shows tho following general facts:
OF quits to which the city Was party, 27S hayo
been finally disposed OF during the year. Or
these 115 were causes in chanccry and 1G3 suits
W weru oills flo. 6y proprrty.owners in the South
Division Of tho city to cnjo!n tie city from col
fccung tint purt Of thc tax leVy for the
year 1877 which was based upon an ar
mcnt N lie South Division Of tie city by tic
ttounty Board. The COURTS, In every case of
bill died 10 on1oln tue collection Of The alegeti
illcgal portion Of tho tax, whore the proof sus-
roiiuf prayed ior: mud th!a decision was sus- U.s.
tatncd by every Judge hcfnrc whom the matter
game, in tho lover, IN the Appellate, md III the
Supreme Court. Willis on thte suo]cct, the
CIty-Attovuoy remarks TINT ho has never hatl
any question as to tho justncss md equity of
thfs decision nor any serious question rs to tla
fact tllat such would be tho decision Of tho
courts.
rhcro is, however, ono grcat hardship, ho says,
amounting to public outrage In this matter,
witch, II impossible OF scctihratfou now, should
at lea*t put every fair and right thinking citizen
md Official charged With duty touching tho u.s.
sessslent OF property for ta1es on guard to
people and small taxpayers have been forced to
pay tint portion Of the tax which has been by
ihG courts, wIta perfect unanimity, tfeciarcd un-
Just md ilcgul.-tsle amount Of the tag assessed
against my ono Of them being SO small tllat It
tux thAn to employ counsel and pay the costs of
SUIT In court. which was neccs-
sarY n order i9 ,',.rH protect BIZ property
was ,akcn from him to the extent Of tic illegal
portion Of the tux collected from him Just ns
citcctunly rs II 1t had been stolen by a th!cf.
The inevitable result OF such public injustice
ticnco OF tho sobcr, industrious, economical
louse-own!ng citizen Tn which class taxpayers
are usually iouud) in his Government, and in
public officials.
in speaklng Of antts agaiust tho city 10 recover
damages for personal injuriss the Csty-Attorney
expressed his belief tint no Judgment, obtained
against tho cltY during The year. was not war.
rantcd bY the law aud Tho evidence. The city ia
liable for such injuries under given states Of
tnct, and, granted The state Of facts tho recovery
Of some dunuges IL In such case almost aa eur-
thin % Judgment upon promissory note
which Ia due and unpaid
The report notices a growing disposition on
the part Of 1urics to treat the city fairly III tic
trlNl uf slcfi cnsee, md, where II has runpted
with The faw, In using 'easo,tabd care In refer
ence to ille safe condition Of It's streets, a!de-
walks. and public places, not, to permit tint
sympathy for the unfortunate which Is NATURAL
aud cscditabe to human beings, be they jury
n,en Or utllcswlse, to beclouu tlcir renson, asid
lead them 10 give what arc known among law-
10 feel that wEliio they might sympatlizo novcr
10 much With p'alntilf who Ind suffered
grlerous injuries, a,ni tint while euch sympathy
would make q contribution Of !uonuy for the rc-
lict U. tho plaintiff commendable 1t, te highcst
degree in individuals who should Rlvo their ora
money for such purpose It did not Justify tlenl
under the saricttou OF ueir oaths Us Jurors, tn
putting tlrlr hAMds
INTO TIE POCKETS OF THE CTR,
and salty their desire to be eharllabs at tho c1
pcnse OF thu Municipal Government Of Chicago,
10 case where, under tho law, tho city wns noo
Liable. Or, II Sympathy llas IN some cases turn
cd Tue balance wtlerc strict legal liability was
cascs have, almost without exception. been for
only tic medical expenses of the person In
tured. or for the funeral expenses Of the de-
ecased, IN twcMty suits Of this character. tried
was IL leu IT Ct tcse the % p,antiis re-. re-.
covered no damages while the amount rceoYcr-
Cd , tn all the remaining cascs WIS less slan
The report goes on to atate .that scycntccu
cases In which Judgments were' recovered wore
for tho city bT contractors. The4e suits we1o
forfnnl mud brought because there vas no ap-
ptuptlatfon to paay The claims on which they are
c!ams into an tntercs,'bear!ng iorin. ID the lis
condemnation suits tried In the past ycar, IN
aggregate sum Of s44,G0l.14 was awarded tor
property takcn ior public use. 1n all cases
where there has huen a trial on the merIts Tho
city has been eucccsstul, and III no caso has Tho
city been called upon to make up q detlcit
caused by tho fatIro to confirm Tie assessments.
Tile report goes OH to point out several cases
decided during tue gcaF. by the Supreme Court,
nlnoug which The following arc Of speciul public
Importance:
ID the case Of David Knight, etc., ys. The City
Of Chtsago, ths Court held tlatlt was not In the
areuue) to tho Wcst Side l'ark Commissioners,
90 US to relieve tic city ot tho duty which tue
Inv imposes upon It, to keep such strout Il, re-
Park Commissioners would, notwithstanding
sllcl trankfcr Ut q street to them by m ortll.
na,!co OF tic City Council, have no power 10
nuke "nd enforce regulation excluding from
kinu OF Vrlllctca permitted upon nny Of thu
streets Of thu ely. hurh transfer u q slreet
can only b. made, al1 power to rcgn'ate thu llsu
thereof granted to the Park commissioners, BY
i liz casc Of Civ Of Chicago VS.. Adeock, thu
Cnurt reai1lruIta In EXPRESS terms tl,a prnci-
pic thAt, in tl,c absence Of HI express agree
Mfnt to pay interest op Claims or demands
agalnst It, u municipal corporation IL not legally
llabe u pay Interest.
III the case OF The City OF Chicago ~. KUN.
Soy, which WIS suit brought br Mr. llumspy
against the city to recover duMuges 10 Ilss prop.
crty un LaSa!l0 strcct, near Randolph, eaGsed
by the construction ot Thu Luea!!u street tuDucl.
tue opening q which wa ol,paalte his propcrty,
court for Slolt0, tt,e supreme Court rcyer.cd
the Judgment. Itwas hoped tl,at tic tlectsiuu
OF the Court IN tlils casc would settle many iu.
trrrstlul uuli Important questions tourh!us tho
liability Of tho city under olr present Collstit-
/ t1on TO pay dnn,agcs oerAsi0Eutl 10 kbuttlux
| property by tho construction OF i tunuoj. tic,
ercctioR Ut yladuct, Or 0thtr improvements
| Of a street. Thu Claim vas ,ualo un b.
llalf OF tho plaintin t.lat .tle Constitution OF
1870 had enlarged the liability Of t: civ Ia such
easea BY adding to thu prussslon of sGu iorIner
Constitution that private property should not
b. sakas for public ubo without lust coinpeusa-
tion being nado, after the WORD alakepW tho
| wptts I" 9r uan!dyai," 90 tilat, altbouch under
tho construction given by the court to tIiat pro-
vlslua ut the former Constitution, Tie ctty was
not liable for DAMAGES such a. thOse sutfefcd by
plalntlH, II pas Liable under tie prestut Con.
| itrtf In 5tS' T.