Los Angeles herald., 1890-07-01
Plans Ordered for a System
of Water Works
To be. Furnished by the City
Engineer.
A Judgment Against DR.. Hagan
Paid by the City.
Superintendent and the City
Attorney.

The city council met yesterday morn
ing, President Frankenfeld in the chair,
and Messrs. Bonsall, Shafer, Brown,
Hamilton, Van Dusen, McLain, Sum-
merland and Wirsching present.
Street Superintendent Morford filed a
protest against the opinion of the city
attorney as to the meaning Of the word
reconstruct. The city attorney had held
that sidewalk or street could only be
ordered repaired or reconstructed with
the same material which had originally
been used. The street superintendent
was of the opinion that it was in his
power to order sidewalks or pavements
to be reconstructed with different mate
rial, and he did not consider it his duty
in justice to his bondsmen to carry out
the idea of the city attorney. Referred
to the board of public works.
The report of the city engineer, as
published in the HERALD. was read and
adopted.
The ordinance of intention to sidewalk
Main street was referred to the board of
public works.
An ordinance of intention to sidewalk
Ninth street was read and adopted.
The plans and specifications for the
Arroyo Seco bridge were referred to the
bridge committee.
A requisition for $3.50 for the fire de-
Partment, for the celebration of the
Fourth, was rejected.
Several members of the council disap-
proved OF allowing the department to
parade on the Fourth.
The city attorney reported as follows
on the petition of DR.. Hagan:
You have referred to me the petition
OF DIR. H. Hagan, stating that in the
year 1888, while acting as health officer
of this city, in pursuance of an order
made by the board of health, instructing
him to remove all persons afflicted with
smallpox to the county hospital, he did
remove one Ida Searles, who was af-
filcted with smallpox, to the county hos
pital, where she afterwards died. that
afterwards an action was brought against
him, as we'll as his assistant and depu-
ties and the individual members of the
city council in Office at that time, for
damages, alleging at the time that said
Ida Searles was removed to the city hos
pital there was heavy rainstorm pre-
vailing and that she was removed ;.a
open, leaky and unprotected wagon,
which allowed the rain to fall upon her,
and that her removal was made in q
grossly negligent manner, and that the
hospital to which she was taken was
cold and damp and open SO that the
wind could blow through the same; and
during her confinement therein was
kept in that condition by the negligence
and carelessness of the defendants. All
of these allegations were denied by the
defendant, and he alleges that her re-
moval was made in a careful manner
and without negligence on his part, and
that the hospital to which she was re-
moved was in good condition and that
she received every care and attention
which she required. The case was tried
and submitted to jury, and among
other Instructions given the jury by the
court were the following:
the defendant, whether acting officially
gently in removing Ida Searles to the
hospital, or negligently or carelessly
placed her in an unfit or improper place,
or after placing her therein treated her
negligently Oh carelessly, or if you find
from any act of negligence of the de-
PENDANTS her death was caused, you
must find verdict for the plaintiff -
All of the instructions of the court were
to the effect that before plaintiff could
recover, negligence must have been
shown on the part of the defendant.
The first jury rendered a verdict OF
$4,000. A new trial was given and the
second jury rendered verdict of 81 900.
In view of the instructions given by the
court, the jury could not have rendered
verdict in favor of the plaintiff unless
they had been satisfied from the evil
dence that the death of this girl was
caused by the negligence or carelessness
of DIR. Hagan. My personal opinion is
that the evidence did not justify the
verdict and that no negligence or care.
lessness on the part of DR.. Hagan which
resulted in the death of the girl was
shown, and that DIR. Hagan acted as any
conscientious officer would do in en-
deayoring to enforce orders given him
and which were intended to prevent the
spread of this epidemic and were neces-
sary for the general health and welfare
of the city. But my personal opinion
should have no weight against the yer.
dict of two juries who heard all the tes
timony and were sworn to decide the
case according to the law and evidence
The city of Los Angeles was never q
party to the suit and is now in no way
legally liable for any portion of thii
Judgment, and if the verdict of the jury
was based upon the fact that the deatf
of this girl resulted from the negligence
of DR.. Hagan, then the city is under nc
moral obligation to pay any portion ot
the judgment.
The city funds which we now have il
the treasury were raised for specific pur
poses, and you are trustees of the same
for the sole purpose of expending then
for the purposes for which the.
were raised and for the payment of lega
claims against the city, and l do no
think you would be justified in usin
any part of these funds to pay this judg
ment against DR.. Hagan.
DIR. Hagan addressed the council a
length, giving history of the case an
his efforts to stop the spread of tn
smallpox.
Major Bonsall, Mr.. Frankenfeld an
Mr.. Hamilton said that they were il
favor of reimbursing DR.. Hagan, who
they thought, had done his duty in pre-
tecting the city.
Mr.. Hamilton moved that DR.. Hagal
be allowed to draw the amount Q
$2,75O in three monthly installment
from the salary fund. Carried.