Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-12-16
BEGIN NO NEW WORK
CITY ENGINEERS INSTRUCTIONS
ASTo SIDEWALKS ANo ALLEYS
Street Committee Refuses Dir. Mayo's
Petition-othsP Matters.

The Council Committee on Streets held
regular se'ni-monthly meeting in the Hastings
Court room last evening. Mr.. William II. Cur
tis filed the chair. and Messrs. Allen. Boykin.
Carter, Brauer. Gray, Straiton, Thomas, Tur-
pin, and Bahen we're present. Tho City Engt-
necr and Attorney were also In attendance.
Considerable timo was taken up Ia talking
about opening and widening some alloys, ou. no
action was taken In reference 10 them.
Mr.. B. A. Brauer, a property-owner on Fif-
teenth street between Broad and Marshall, ap-
peared before tho committee and asked that
Fifteenth street bo opened. The matter was re-
ferred to the City Attorney to dedue Mr.. Brauers
rights In the promises.
WANTS rue OLD LINE TO STAND.
petition was read from Mr. Z. II. Mayo and
the Guarantee Company OF North America
represented By Nessrs. Peasants & Coz asking
that the buildings on the present western SIDE OF
jefferson street be allowed TO mark tho cstab-
lished line OF that side OF the thoroughiare. Mr.
Mayo owns the building at the southwest corner
| OF Broad and jefferson streets, which now en-
| croachss four feet and some inches upon Jeier-
| son street. and he Is desirous OF purchasing sn
| adjoining lot IN order TO make Improvements
lie therefore wants the street.-The 10 stand ne IL
now is In order that no can get the oenent OF me
| extent OF the encroachment when no Degihs inc
| erection OF the proposed new store.
On motion OF SIR. Bahen, the petition was re-
!ected. .
|
| City-Attorney Meredith letter In reference to
| the Supreme Court of Appeals decision-that it
| Is unconstitutional 70 assess aouttiuy property
| owners for street improyementS-Nas teau auI @
| MIR. Meredith gave in detail the euect OF she
| opinion. He said that II was clearly denncl
| in tho decision that all street improvements
| must be paid for by general ta1aton' ne
| stated thet a petition for q rehearing Oh the
| case will be hlod. Mr.. Meredith claimed that u
this opinion should stand the decision IN the
| Sands case must besyod. The Attorney recon-
mended that no moro work 10 DC chargeu "
property-Owners bo done until after the tehear-
| ing OF the case. 49,. ,,.,
| on motion, tho committee instructed the City
| Engineer 90 push so completion all wofN now
being done on sidewalks aud alleys, but " ailo"
no new work to be commenced. -. ,,,,,,..,
After the transaction OF some minor ousluees'
| tho body adjourned.
EFFECT UPON LEE DISTRICT
| When Mr.. Meredith WAS asked by DIsfAICh
| reporter az to the ofect Of the Supreme Court ;
/ decision upon the work ordered IN the annexed
portion OF Lee District, that Oclal stated tha' ~
| long "a the Union stood as II Is az present ne
| was OF the opinion that tho city could not 20
! ahead with the grading, Re-, with the eApecta-
| ton that the abutting prOperty-owners could DC
| made 20 pay for the work.
| Mr. James Caskie, who has been quite prOml'
| ncnt in the movement % improve the annexed
| portion Of the district, and who is taking deep
| interest In the matter, was seen by OisPAIVH
man yesterday, and he, In talking about the
| opinion, saul ,-t-...
| al have read somewhat hurrtedly the decision
OF the Court OF Appea.s in the case or Clty ol
| Norfolk vs. Chamberlain. Az l understand the
| decision, which embraces some ninety pages Ol
| manuscript, it decides that any provision IN a
legislative act or city charter which proyidesthhi
! street or roadway improvements can be charged
| against abutting property-Owners "a VOID Inc
| derson, as understand IL, does not decide tha'
| assessments for paving Sidewalks and alleys are
| void. The case OF Sands 70. CITY OF hichinonu,
| which sustains tho pavement ordinance rs ho'
oyerruled. but the Court says that IL VIII not e1
| tend the application Of that and similar cases.
| REHEARING ASKED.
at IL impossible % say az present. Mr.. Cas-
kie continued what will De the eject Of tht
| Norfolk u.s. Chamberlain opinion on the Lee-Dls
trict annexation act motion was made IN th'
Court OF Appeals this morning for leave 10 hl'
petitlon for reEeAring. The leave was granted
| and the petition will be ilod.
| elf rehoaring Is granted and the Court re
verses it, opinion in the Norfolk case, tue lm
| p-oyements In annexed portion OF Lee Dislric
| can bs made as tho act Of annexation proVlles
| IT, on the other hand, tehearing Is refused OK
| II granted the Court sdheres % Its former de
| cision, then any street Improvement made u
! annexed portion OF Lee District will have 70 b
| paid out OF general funds Of the city. l suppoe
| chat tho city Of Richmond and tho property
| owners in Lee District will take no steps IN th
| matter OF street improvements In that secuo
of the city until the Court OF Appeals hnauy dls
| poses Of the Norfolk case"