Telegram-herald., 1889-07-10


Total 81 s65 O.
For all of which hold the City Treasurer 5
receipts which are herewith attached.
Respectfully submitted.
W. A SHisKNAS.
CITY CLERK
Referred to Committee on Claims and Ae-
counts.
Cry ATToENEY's OFFICE.
GRAsp RSPIDs. Mich. July q. lnhs.
To the Honorable the Mayor and Common
Council of the City of Grand Rapids:
Genllemrn-Ny attention having been ire
queniy called to difficulties in regard 10 the
lines OF sidewalks laid in the city, and there
being no specific provision regulating the mat
ter in the ordinance relative 10 the eonslruc-
tion and repair Of sidewalks ia the city Of
Grand Rapids. aud the late ordinance In re-
gard 10 the construction OF stone sidewalks
only applying 10 Monroe-st. aud certain por-
tons of Canal and Lyon-sts. l have prepared
and herewith submit for your consideration.
an ordinance regulating the matter Of con
structing sidewalks. both as 10 the grade of the
upper surface and 10 the proper align
ment of such sidewalks. and suggest that the
same be referred 10 your Committee on 0rdi
nances iar due examination and report.
Respectfully submitted.
M2. WisNER TsYLoR.
City Attorney.
On motion Of Aid. 0Donnell. referred 10
Committee on 0rdinances.sis requested.
CTY ATToRSEY's oriIcI.
GRAND RAPIDS. Mich. July ,. lesJ.
To the Honorable the Mayor and Common
Council of the City of Grand Rapids;
conference.-the case of Nathaniel Jhayer ct
al. against tie cityof Grand Rapids. 70 recover
certain alleged surplus mo nies. claimed to
have been retained by the city out OF several
assessment rolls which cause MAS commenced
on June 5. 1885, came on 10 be heard IN the
superior court on the sth. 9th. 10th aud llih
days OF May. lsoe. an on May q MAS argued
and submitted 10y 4lr. J. ". Ransom ana NY
self
The surpluscs claimed were or eight differ
ent assessment rolls. The amonDi claimed ty
the Ihayer estate WAS some six hundred dol
lars and interest TO be added. On June ~.
Judge Buriingame rendered decision In ia'oT
OF plaintiffs for SSH. and interest amounting
to 81 II, making a total of sils2S. In reaching
his conclusion In. Judge rejected all the Items
charged for monies paid 60 the city clerk for
making copies of said assessment rolls. he
also rejected large number of items of
money paid the city surveyor Tor engineering
connected with said improvements. hc also
rejected some items for abstracts procured in
the matter OF making the assessment rolls ior
said Improvements. 1t WAS conten6ed by the
city that the monies hayin. been paid by
plaintins voluntarily. and as au assessment
for the said special Improvements. there WAS
no right of recovery for any alleged
Surpuses except specifically pro
vidci for in the charter OF said
city, that the plaintiffs had not taken the
course pointed out I'm the said charter. and
and the Common Council had refused 60 act
mandamus was the proper remedy to compel
the council Ia act The city further contended
that the burden rested upon the plaintiffs 20
show by competent proof the actual surplus. ~
any, ia said special funds after the general aud
contingent funds of the city had been rein
bUrsed Tor any advances made from either Of
said funds TO any oi said special assCssmeIt
funds.
The court ruled against the city on all the
foregoing points. and held that assuBpsit
would iIc for assessments voluntarily paid. u
further held that the fact that the balances
lett In the several special funds had bern tfaus
ferred 10 the general fund made a prima facla
case for the plaintiffs. aud threw the burden
upon the city defendant Of showing that there
vs. tn fact no balance left IN tie severs spe-
ciAi funds after satisfying the proper demands
OF the general and contingent funds against
| them or. if there were hslsBce. how much
| the same would b. after mst iug the proper
| deductions. TIE court. as stated above. Te-
| iecled al the charges OF the city clerk Tor
making copies ~ the rolls OF the grounds that
the sad clerk was paid ssiafE. and that there
| was 30 special proVlsion in the charter for
payina him = Zee Tor making the SAID copies.
| and. therefore. it WAS the duty of ihe city
| clerk 10 make the said copies without extra
1 charge. The eourt rejected. - stated above.
the accounts II NJ. sekell FOR eBeineesins sef
/ wee. although IL was proven that his bills we're
| pre scented. containiug specific charges against
the said special improvements far engineering
/ done ia connection Herewith wers aUoifed ~
! the comptroller. ordered paid ~ the Common
/ Council shown fn the treasurer backs o. have
been paid 0uf 81 the genersl fund n the city 81
/ tbe date corresponding with the presentation
I 81 said bills ard siss Shown freH The treas
gref's looks that ne geHersi f tlurf Hf fond
had never len rei Ensfur-ed for the same as i5F
/ iasfanee. from the fressafer's books June 81
/ til yzs allowed on JBne 3 Honass. and June
/ s. General fund. a G. Sekell sLslg1-sh0Ni 20
/ from fae freasurer's books thst A. q. Seksli s
{ tsli frr thaf gsonfh. amounting g. S9o.oz. ~ss
I faia from fhe Ee1er4i funo ~ fsfe cts. crrre
( sptHsing vlfb fhe ceuneli G.rneesatags ~ Msn
aaE Zone =. uaieb saos,es fu tire corart rtro.Ief's
/ reperf sf.st = t.5a sf A. q seseg fsr fhe szns
/ amount. I'D feen A8fifsd. approved ~ fhs
/ eomptYo1er. 5.Isia ~ the eyua esi vbics
/ fte1aIz@d BIZ vss prgfased sa5r INK speefh.
/ ehsrses azsiast some - fh- speeisl assess
/ beats III eHpst55a- Ih.s eeUrse Fas rarsar1
I ulth 81 fhe fffs ~ NJ Sekef fhzf ~ ~,
shie - fns iH the ofsce 81 tss cify c5efk. affst
+ r rsoxf carefai seaTcb. Iff afc8nNts vtr-
3 back g. is-3. snS covered E.sr5Ss - sevsrs
+ veafS zaa lH several lassss ee< wf Vere n.a
( zsa r. fHa fbe iteniy-1 81 - - - fs.d -.