Telegram-herald., 1890-01-16

3aase BarlingAsse's sae~ 81 the case ~
sllEa AESllst lae N4ts.

et--A = s@At.st ~A-e NAts
judge BurE ngame rendered his de-
c-Aon yesterday SEA the case at sssa
aga lst ths cty. and ths sleu ae taess
of the matter Viii be of considerable
interest 10 people who contemplate
bringing s-mlar sults and especially 50
10 at.orneys The following is tle
opnCL
"In t1e mstter ~ Slga snd others
SIS. tae Cty of Grand Rapids. tae court
$ of the opinion that lAc amendment
10 the CTS charter does nol introduce
matter foreign u ts OF g.ual oi9ect,
that Il WAS competent under the
-eueIal Lue Ot AN act o.
revise the charter ot Grand kap-
lis, being amendatory ~ an act
entitled an act T. incorporate tle ciy
ot Grand Rapids approved Apfl =,
1870 ~ amended hy tne several acts
amenCatory thereof, fer tAe Leg .sla-
t0Te q pass the law az amended ~
avs Ut s5 and So a. a part ot the
or gnal rev sed charter, and that the
titles OF thc several amendments were
equally sufficient a. CONFORM 10 Tie
constitutional requirements.
10 the cOmplauants proposition.
that the amendments Of 81 and ~ all
lowed judgments 10 be obtained against
tile city for which the city 5 not liable,
bat must be paid by complainants, and
yet it gives cOmplalnants no OppOr-
tunity 90 be heard. The court Be- Of the
opinion IN this case that the verdict for
damages was a verdict against tAe
whole city, and as much against
the cOmplalnauts IA tins case,
as against those not complalnanis.
That the complamantS as portion 0l
the city were represented by the action
Of the Common Council, two OF whom
were representatives sent by them from
Their ward, and that the city attorney
IA court represented them as frac-
tional portion of the city, precisely the
same rs he represented every other
fractional part OF the city; and that all
OF hs acts N the premises as we'll a
the action of the Common Council WAS
much and the same in their behalf, "a
iu behalf of any other fractional pOr-
ton OF inhabitants OF the city, and
that through these representatives the
cOmplainants were always IN court and
mad their day IN court precisely a. any
other citizen OF the city. This court
has 10 right TO, and viii not presume,
that their interests were not as
thoroughly cared for and as care
fully guarded a though they
had been IN court by their
own individual names, nor viii the
court presume that the interests OF
some larger fractional portion OF the
city Of Grand Rapids was any more
carefully looked after, than the smalieS
fractional portion the cOmplainants IA
tins easel.
''To the third proposition; the court
held that under the law the tax WAS
properly assessed from real estate with
ont looking for personal property.
ITO the fourth; that there was no no.
tice gwen to these taxpayers; they be-
inga part of the city had proper notice
of all the proceedings OF the Common
Council.
TO the proposition that the jury was
not selected of freeholdcrs under the
law; the matter might have been heard
by the Judge without q jury, by supula-
ton between the parties concerned.
"And under the same rule. with the
city attorney representing them, hls
action ID the premises was their acton,
and they are bound by lt.
at appears from the evidence that
the parties were owners of the prop
clty.
TO the claim that the damage was
was greater than the benefits, that the
verdict should show that.
"Thev claim that all the land IN the
district was not assessed. The evidence
showed that the board of cOmmis-
siOners intended 10 assess the whole,
and 50 far as the assessment was
concerned they did SO, and
II there was any Irregularty u was IN
regard TO the description, and that i
tine amount had not been assessed, j
would only have been an amount upon
so small a parcel as 10 be merely NOM
nal. and not sutllcIcnt U lustlly onen