Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-02-27
IMPROVING STREETS.
1he City's Rights Under the Vroo.
man Act Tested.

man ACT Iesteus
The HERALD referred yesterday to q
decision of Judge Shaw, and promised to
give it today. Last January the Council
decided to improve Soto street, Boyle
Heights. Charles Charnock, ]. ]. Char
mock, @. j. Richards and l. S. Sherman
protested. they owning a majority OF the
frontage. The contract to do the work
WAS let, and the parties named above
asked for an Injunction to stop the work
The decision is as follows:
The proceedings were instituted under
what is known as the Vrooman act, which
provides: "The owners of more thar
one-haif i'll frontage of lots and lands
fronting on any street, lane, alley, place
or court, or their duly authorized agents
may petition the City Council to order
any of the work mentioned in section two
Of this act to be done, and the City Coun
Gil may order the work mentioned in sale
petition to be done, after notice of its
intention so to do has been posted and
pnblished, as provided in Section
of this act."
In this proceeding the initiatory step
was q petition to the Council signed by
. majority of the owners. Afterwards,
and within the time limited after the
passage of the resolution of intention, a
protest. also eigned by the owners of a
msjority of the frontage, was duly de-
liyered to the clerk of the Council. This
was signed by some of the persons who
had previously signed the petition, and
without their names would not have had
. majority of the frontage.
: It is contended by the defendant that
the provisions of Section 3 of the
net concerning the protest of majority
of the frontage against the work, and
the consequent stay of proceedings for
nix months, have no application to a
proceeding begun by petition under Sec.
tion 4.
I am of the opinion that this is the
correct Interpretation of the act.
Section invests the City Council
with jurisdiction to order to be done on
the streets any of the work mentioned
IN Section under the proce edings there.
matter prescribed.
Section gives the Council power of
their own motion and without request or
petition from any person to begin the
proceedings whenever in their opinion
the public interest or convenience may
require the work.
Section outlines the method of pro-
cedure in detail. 1t provides that they
shall first paes resolution of intention
TO do the work and describe the work
therein. Then certain notices are to be
given by the Street Superintendent. At
this stage of the case an objection in
writing by the owners of one-half or
moro OF the frontage stops the proceed
ings for six months, unless within that
time the owners of one-half or more of
the frontage shall petition for the same to
be done. Each of these may be by one
half only, which is not majority. This
objection is the only means by which the
owners of the property can interfere with
the proceedings when they are instituted
by the Council of its own motion. 1t
seems to me that the provision was in-
serted for the sole purpose of giving the |
owners OF the frontage the power to |
check the Council to the extent of six
months stay. Without this they would |
be entirely powerless and the Council
would have full control. There
was therefore good reason for in
sorting this provision and making
it apply to a proceeding begun by the
Council without petition. But there is
no good reason for making this provision
apply to q case begun upon the voluntary
petition Of the owners of majority of
the frontage asking for the doing of the
very work in question. 1t would appear
silly to allow the owners to stop work
which is ordered to be done upon their
own petition. Such construction of
the act ought not to be made unless the
language clearly requires it either ex-
pressly or by implication. This it does
not do. Section 4 prescribes the method
of proceeding when the work is ordered
on the petition of the owners. In the
first place it requires the petition OF more
than one.half the frontage. 1t implies
shat the petition must describe the work
desired to be done, and the Council he's
no authority under this section to order
any work done. The language is: "The
City Council may order the work men
toned in said petition to be DONE"
Therefore this section gives no authority
for other work. 1t also provides the ether
conditions to be com piled with in carry.
ing out the work. In my opinion it calls
for the application of the rule, Expressio
Anius est eGclusio alterious. 1t de-
clares that the Council may order the
work to be done latter notice of its in
tention so to do has been posted as re-
quired in Section 8 of this act" This is
the only reference to Section 8 and it is
the only prerequisite to the ordering of
the work. 1t follows from the applica-
ton of the rule that the other restric-
lions of Section do not apply.
Again, it must be admitted that the
Legislature in enacting Section 4 had
some object in view.
If, however, the theory of the plaintiff
is correct, and after the petition under
Section is fled, all the proceedings
mentioned in Section are necessary or
allowable, then there is no use for Sec
ton 4. It would be without any force
whatever. For the owners have the
right of petition without Section A. Now,
If under Section the Council must pass
q resolution of intention which they
could do without the petition, then of
what use is the petition? And the Coun-
eil might refuse to pass the resolution.
If it did refuse, the petitioners could not
force it's passage.
1t ia my opinion that the petition
mentioned in Section A is intended to
take the place of the resolution of inten-
ton required by Section 3, and that
when The proceeding is begun by the
proper petition no resolution of intention
is necessary, but the notice of intention
xnk t<>k sv,ka tA u khn l.