Telegram-herald., 1890-03-05

axnts. for tas ~esx saaiaz February 2. lsss.
mas rsDsiasd 1nlzhfsa 0as hs4r sac ever.
Respectfully.
By NrREEScL3z.
secretary Board q Ponce sa4 Pre- comHais
aoasFs.
Referred % rhs Committee oz Lamps.
ss.sD eArEss. Men. AsreA /. t,-e-
To Tie Honorable Mayor s1d loMmQn &e4neIl
6entiemea-J ader eiFeetl9u ~ the board.
report the receipts 9ls51l frem NF. Loertgert
rhe seeoant 0f moaes pale - TIE polies de-
partmeaE In relesraphlng concerning 1sthi4s
Lzax. deceased. Iae above azmed sum las
osea taruea iat0 the eify treasury
Respectfully submitted.
BF. McRzTs0LDs.
secretary Board u Po.lee aad Fire cemmis-
sioners.
Accepted snd placed oa ale.
Reports Of Committees.
70 ne Honorable the Common Council 0f the
Cifs 81 Grand Rapids
6entlemen-fogr Committee On Ciaips ana
Aceounfs % whom sas referred tne Claims OF
Frsak +. Cnase. asklng damages for INJURY 20
his property through stoDFage 0i a sever.
betEeea Crescent avenue ana Bridge street.
respectfully repOrE that theS have cAfeialis
examined the same. and ma that sAld sever
has stopped By various improper artlrlrs- saeh
- asnes wood. oyster shells. ia cans. etc.
uhieh residents sloag the street had thrown
iat8 The water closets. whence tney got into
fh@ sewers. that 40 u0tiee OF the condition OF
me sewer vas given % the city prior 20 the
sfoBpage ~ ths same. Your committee would
therefore recommend that the claim oe dis
allowed. as there Is 40 legal claim against The
city the parties stopping said sever beiRg
Liable o. The claimant.
IsAAcM TUsSxs.
A L. IEEEx.
Adopted.
Ye4s--Ald. Anderson. Baldwin. Creque. En-
mer. Lsunisre. Rodgers. Saunders, Stein.
stokes. Turner. Yerex-i
Says-AId. O'Donneli. sproul-2-
70 the Honorable thc Common Council OF the
City of Grand Rapids.
6entiemen-f our Committee on Claims and
Accounts. % whom vas referred the claims Of
stuart. KRappen ( Van Arman for services as
attorneys IN the eases OF Lyon ~ Smith and
Hurley and sparks v. kennedy. would re-
spectluliy report that they have carefully in
vesttgsred the same and nnd that the actions
IN which the claimants appeared as attorneys
we're brought against police ofncers OF the city
OF Grand Rapids In eases for false imprison-
meat.
Ia the case OF Lyon vs.. Smith { Hurley. the
defendants were superintendent and Ieuten-
ant Of police OF the city and arrested plaintiff
upon a bench warrant issued by the police
court Of the city Of Grand Rapids. the de-
fendant having neglected 20 appear upon sub
pOena In a state criminal ease pending in said
court.
After the case had been disposed OF Lyon
sued the police officers for a false imprison-
ment and was suited at tue trial. the
judge OF the circuit court taking the case from
the consideration Of the jury. The claim
against the city involves an important princi-
pie which ought 10 be speedily settled. The
officers were acting under the process OF the
police court. which they weres bound 20 obey.
and 10 IS but just that some public authority
should stand behind them ani protect them
in case they are sued for carrying out the
mandate Of the court. and the question arises
whether this public authority should be the
city OF Grand Rapids or the county OF Kent.
n the case In which this arose had been a
city case IL IS plain tn at the city should bear
the expense Of defending the suit. which
defense should In all cases be conducted by
the city attorney or some one appointed by the
Common Council. 70 whom the application
should be made by the officers as soon as suit
Is brought against them.
In the judgment OF your committee IL Is
equally clear that in State case In which the
city Is In no wise interested. the county OF
Kent. 10 whom Is delegated by the State the
conduct OF criminal prosecutions within the
county. should be the party behind the officers
protecting them from damage for fulfilling
their Oficlal duties. The city has no control
supervision or management OF State criminal
cases; everything Is confded 10 the county.
and II officers. In the performance OF their
legal duties connected with these cases are
sued. 10 is clear that the prosecuting attorney
or other county attorney should defend them.
The facts In the case OF Sparks vs.. Kennedy
are analogous with those in the case of Lyon
vs.. Smith. and your committee therefore rec
ommend that the said claims be dlsaIlOwed.
for the reason that they are claims against the
county % Kent. and not against the city of
Grand Rapids. Your committee would further
recommend thar the matter be referred 10 the
city attorney. 10 advise this council what steps
should be taken hy the police officers 20 en-
force their claims against the county of Kent.
as 10 Is clear to your committee that some pub
tic authority should pay these bills. IL they are
not already covered by the cOunty's contract
with It's prosecuting attorney who presents
them. and that the legal status OF the matter
should be settled as soon as possible.
Isaac W. TURNS,
A. Z. YEREx.
Committee on Claims and Accounts.
Adopted.
Yeas-Ald. Anderson. Creque Emmer. Laun-
iere. saunders. stein. Stokes. Sproul. Turner
Ierex-i0.
Nays-Ald. Baldwin. O'Donnau. Rodgers