The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1885-03-10
CITY REPORTs.
CITY SOLICITOR.

City Solicitor Looney reports that at the date of
the last annual report,-February 29 1oS4,-there
5. r. HaWes. O.S. Waite, City Of Bath, W. II.
Allen, N c, Davis, e j. WoodmaiI, and Catherine
Conlev, against the city, ana proceedings begun by
the city vs.. Union Mutual Lie Insurance Company,
B +. Andrews vs. Marquis E. King ct ais., and
Mercantile Trust Company VS.. City OF Portland ct
ais.
damages for injuries the is pending before the
Law Court on exceptions filed by plaintiff. The
case Of s. II. Halves, asuit Tor $500 damages for
injuries, Will probably be entered neither party at
the Apru term of the Supreme Court. The SUIT OF
Oliver s. Wai.e Tor injuries, has not yet been as
signed for riai. The suit of the City of Bath for
$510 for the support of pauper was entered
neither party at the last April term The suit ri W.
II. Allen or $4,000 for injuries has not been as
signed for trial. The suit of Eliza j. Woodman an
appeal account of a road being established
across her land on Long island, dismissed as
the street was discontinued The suit OF Catherine
Conley. administrator for 81 5000 for injuries re-
ceived by the late james Conley is before the Law
Court on important law questions and Is being
argued in writing. The suit Of the City Of Portland
the Union Mutual to recover the tax assessed by
the city on the company's personal property for
1882 and 1883 has been submitted TO the Law
Court agreed statement OF facts. In the case
of Benz +. ALdrews VS.. Marquis f. King ct ais
the well known Civ Marshal case-a decision has
not been received from the Law Court.
In the case of the Mercantile Trust Company VS.
the Portland and Ogdensburg Railroad Company il
is known that since 1880 there has been suit
pei ding in the Circuit Court, for the District OF
New Hampshire. by the plaintiffs against the rail
road company and trustees of the second mort
gage bonds. The Trust Company holds $4,000
worth OF second mortgage bonds and sought fore
closure Of the mortgage the part OF the road IN
New Hampshire and its sale. The sale would be sc
disastrous the citys interests the city pettontd
to intervene and became a party to the suit. The
| court granted the petition and the counsel fol
the city then argued before Judge Gray. that tbs
foreclosure should be OF the whole railroad, auC
should not be by preudcial sale but by vesting th
title the railroad in the trustees without right
redemption. Juige Gray reserved his decision bu
counsel confident the decree viii be in favor o
the claims of the city. supported as they were b.
counsel for trustees 1t found that in the even
of such a decree it would be impossible to organic
| a corporation the State law is limited 10 rail
roads " ing in the State and while the City Council
could sell its interest in the road 1t could not con
sent to lease of the road. The result WAS the pas
/ sage of the late bill before the Legislature. IL
necessary to take the proper steps TO secure th
concurrent action TO the bill in the New Hampshr
| Legislature. Reference is also made to the suit I
| appoint aud permit receiver TO issue S20u,OO
worth of certificates for repairs and necessary el
| penses on the road. and to sell $4,000 of Gel
| tincates to pay overdue coupons, preferred claim
ETC., to which the city is party. The hearing wi
occur the first Tuesday 10 April. Tne court docke
| is practically cleared of city cases.