Los Angeles herald., 1890-11-14
THE Los ANGELES HERAID MORNING. NOVEMBER H. 1890

City, on Third street, same; Yarnell vs..
City, two cases, contesting the right Of
the city to loan the city money to the
City Bank; Mark G.. Jones VS.. Nor
ford, mandamus to compel him
to remove Electric railway poles
Cobb VS.. City, suit for $4,000 damages,
because he was prevented peddling from
a wagon on Spring street.
The city has lost the following cases
Lockwood vs. City, mandamus to COM
pei the city council to furnish him with
Janitor for his court; Phillips vs.. City,
involving right of board of equalization
to make what is known as the "horizon-
tai raise" on property on Main. Spring
and Los Angeles streets; Williams VS..
City, action upon written contract
entered into between him and the city
by which he was to receive $1,000 for as
sistlng City Attorney Mckinley in the
opening OF Los Angeles street.
The following cases are still pending
Hanson VS.. City, to enjoin the erection
OF smallpox hospital; Latham vs. City,
involving title to Plaza engine house,
now In supreme court; Bigelow vs. City,
same; Main Street R. R. VS.. Morford,
to enjoin tearing down of its stables on
Washington street; French Society VS..
City, enjoining grading of Yale street !;
Mary A. Mooney VS.. City, con-
corning title to land claimed by
city to be part of Jefferson street; Mary
A. Mooney VS.. Morford, for $23, 400 dam
ages, trespass on her property in
grading Jefferson street; Wells VS.. Nor
ford, enjoining him from removing bridge
in street in front of plaintiffs property ;
A. Valla vs.. City, street assessment for
widening First street; A. Dehail vs.
City, same Solano vs.. City, enjoining
horizontal raise of taxes; Childs vs..
City, enjoining assessment for opening
Ward street; People VS.. City, to COM
pei city to remove Plaza engine-house,
claiming the property it is on is street !;
Los Angeles Cemetery Association vs..
City, to quiet title to part of land in
cemetery; same VS.. same, action for
$4,000 damages for blocking mp water
course in grading First street; City vs..
Linde and lS9 other defendants, to have
damages estimated for cutting down
Temple street; st. Pauls School VS..
City, to quiet title to land claimed by
city to be part of Ward street; First Ma
tional Bank VS.. City, involving right of
a city to compel banks to pay taxes upon
it's personal property and credits; Los
Angeles Savings Bank vs. City,
same; Farmers and Merchants Bank
VS.. City, same; City vs.. Citizens Water
Company, action to forfeit franchise and
water works to the use of the city.
The cases pending in the supreme
court are Yarnell VS.. City. Phillips VS..
City, Williams vs.. City, Latham VS..
City, Bigelow VS.. City, Parcels VS.. City,
Mills vs. City.
In addition to these cases, City Attor-
ney Mcfarland has also prosecuted in
the police court 3C77 cases. in which
III l,475 days of imprisonment were meted
out, and $l1 ,036 collected as fines. He
has also had to give numerous opinions,
and to advise the different officers of the
city in multitude of matters, attend to
all the council work and draw ordi-
nances. He has had to prepare all the
proceedings in relation to the issuing OF
1915, 900 worth of sewer and $500, ,O00
worth of school bonds, which proceed
ings were not even questioned by the
attorneys of the parties who bought the
bonds. He has also had to prepare all
the contracts for the building of these
sewers and school houses, and in al
other matters in which the city is inter
ested, as we'll as the ordinances for street
grading and the opening and widening
of streets. The city has not had to pay
one cent for outside counsel during Mr.
McFarland's term of Office, something
which cannot be said for any former ad
ministration for number Of years.