The record-union., 1891-08-25
Two LEGAL OPINIONS.
Property-0wners Liable for Improving
Street.
But Lawyer White Says the Railway
Company Should Move Its Track
to the Street Center.

The question as to whether or not the
Central Electric Railway Company is re-
sponsible for the payment of the cost of
grading and graveling street. from
| Twenty-first to Twenty eighth, for the
width of two tracks although only one is
laid on the street. was taken up yester-
day by the City Trustees.
An opinion from S. S. Holl and c. II,
Oatman of the Street Improvement Com
pany was read. They say: "Asa a matter
Of fact the double railroad track on J
street extends only to the east line Of
Twenty-tirst street, the track being sim
| gle from the east line Of Twenty-irst
street to the center line Of Twenty-eighth
street. By reason of this fact said assess
ment against the property Liable for the
expense of the work is too low by the
| sum of S724 81. This amount the Central
Electric Company refuses to pay, and in
| our opinion payment Of the same can be
successfully evaded by it. Therefore, the
Sacramento Street Improvement Com
! pany respectfully appeals to the board
| from the assessment heretofore made,
and prayS that new assessment be IS
sued, assessing to the property liable for
| the expense Of the work, under the terms
| OF said Act Of March Is, 1885, the said sum
of S724 81, in addition to the amount now
assessed, and requests your honorable
| board to appoint time and place Of hear
| ing this appeal"
Clinton L. White in his opinion to the
| board says: "a consideration of the law
and the ordinance leads me TO the
| opinion that the railway company is only
| liable for payment for the Improvement
Of that portion Of street between
| Twenty-first and Twenty y-eighth streets.
~
| feet on each side of the rails. 1t is liable
on the basis of the road, as actually con-
structed, not on what ii may claim in the
| way OF a franchise. 1t is liable for the
! improvement Of street, between
Twenty-frst and Twenty eighth streets,
on the basis of having a single track
thereon, with the exception of the block
! between Twenty-SeVenth and Twenty
eighth, where it has a switch also; and it
is my opinion that the right of the COM
pany on j street, from Twenty-1irst to
| Twenty eighth is-because of its failure
to construct "a double track thereon within
the time limited by the ordinance-now
confined TO the right to maintain and
operate single track only. Such single
track is required, both by the
law and the ordinances granting the fran
chiSe to be as nearly as possible in the
middle of the street. The company has
no legal right to maintain and operate
this road on one side OF the street, as it is
now doing, and its so doing constitutes
an unlawful use OF said street by it. The
company is under the legal obligation, if
it continues to maintain said track, to re-
move the same to the middle of the
street."
Directors Coleman and LindIey, Of the
Street Improvement Company, appeared
before the board at the afternoon session
and suggested that in the future the board
should, i'll letting contracts for street
grading, make an order designating who
should pay the assessment.
Trustee Conklin moved that the adjust
ment of the matter at issue be left to the
Street Commissioner.
The matter was discussed al some
length between the members of the board
! and Messrs. Coleman and Lindley and
| tinally-WithOut any action being taken
on Trustee Conklin's mOtion-an order
was made that all parties concerned be
given formal hearing on Monday next
on the protest against the assessment)
filed by the Street Improvement Com
| Dany,