The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-06-23
70 MOVE THE TOLL GATE.
THE VERNON SHELL ROADS PROP
RRTY TO BIZ CONDEMNED.

hR1 AZ Dh
The City Council Appoints Appraisers
for the Company's Roadway and
Franchises Within the City Limits.
The Solomon 81 Son Appealed Case.
me Right of the City to Demand a
Firms Books Involved.
Yesterday afternoons session Of council
was q short one. The members present
were Mayor MoDonough and Aldermen
Bailey, McGuire, Myers, Reid. Mills.
Haines Cam, Charlton and OBrien. and
City Attorney Adams.
The special committee on the Vernon
shell road case reported thatit had boen un-
able to come to any Agreements with the
she'll road company, and recommended that
the rights required by the city therein be
condemned. A resolution to this effect was
prepared by Alderman Charlton and was
adopted as follows:
Resolved, That all rights aud franchises of the
Vernon Shell Road Company, in so much OF the
White Bluff road as is now within the CITY lin
its. or north Of Twelfth street, be condemned
under the power vested In the city OF Savannah
by paragraph 4S49 Of the Code OF Georgia, and
10 this end James D. Weed, John FlannerY, s.
Krouskoff j. J. Dale and Z. A. Well, freehold
ers of the city of Savannah, be and they are
hereby appointed to assess the damages that
m&y De sustained DT the shlu company on &C
count of such condemnation, the award to in
clude the removal of the toll house and the
fences Of the company within the city limits.
THE SOLOMON SON CASE
Alderman Myers moved a reconsideration
In the case of Henry Solomon & Son, APP
peallng against the tax assessment OF the
property Of the firm made by the assessment
commi tee, which was dismissed at the last
session OF council, on account of the refusal
of the firm to produce its books in sub
sanitation OF its claims. The question Of
reconsideration was argued by Aldermen
Myers, Charlton. Cam and Carson.
Alderman Myers said that it was not
proper to dismiss the appeal Of the firm
simply because IL had refused to produce its
books in court, without considering other
evidence submitted. There were many
reasons, he said, why a firm does not wish
TO lay open Its books to any body Of men
not closely connected with 1t, aud is Is some
thing that should not be required by council.
Alderman Myers said he would not submit
the books of his firm to council under any
condition.
A DEMAND FOR THE BOOKS.
Alderman Charlton argued that In cases
of this kind IL was absolutely necessary for
the parties interested to bring their books
before council to enable 10 to obtain any
correct idea Of the property held by the
parties interested and its value, and that in
case Of their refusal there should be sum-
mary process to compel them TO do 80 or
dismiss the appeal as provided by law.
Aldermen Myers said this law appeared
TO apply only to merchants. Why should
IL not apply, he asked, to other business men
dealing IN stocks and bonds and why were
not these assessments increasedl
Alderman Cam said that he would not
be willing to produce his books In case of
this kind and he did not think business
man should be required TO produce his books
for the inspection Of thirteen other men who
might thus be enabled to discover great
many other things than the primary object
In view.
The motion to reconsider was carried by
yea and nay vote, Aldermen Mcclure
Myers, Mills, Haines, Cam and O'Brien
voting in favor Of the motion and Alder
men Reid aud Charlton voting no.
City Attorney Admss gave an opinion
Shst the law as it now stands was not In
tended TO apply to cases Of this kind, but TO
cases where in litigation between two par
tlesl is necessary to produce book or paper
In evidence the absence of which might be
injurious to the case of the party applying
Tor It, However, be held that under the
law the council had perfect right TO de-
mand the books Of a business house or firm
IN an appeal case and to dismiss the case If
the books were refused.
THE CASE AS 1T STANDS,
The case OF Solomon & Son is about as
followo: The firm failed to make return
OF its property for taxation as required by
law. City Marshal Wade made an assess
ment of the property of the firm, assessing
the stock in trade at S35, 900, and solvent
notes and accounts at $4,000, doubling
both amounts according to law, and issuing
an execution against the firm for taxes
thereon. Solomon & Son appealed to
council and were relieved OF the
double tax. They then made a re-
turn for amounts great deal
less than that assessed by the city
marshal. The matter was referred to the
assessment committee Of council, who made
an examination and sustained the CITY mar
shals assessment. They appealed then
from the finding Of the assessment com
mittee to the council. They were served
with notice to produce their books before
council, which they refused to do and the
appeal was dismissed at the previous meet
ing TO the last.
The case is now again opened for consid-
Grafton.
Solomon q Son may be served with no
tlce again to produce their books
George NJ Williams was, upon applioa.
ton, appointed an Inspector of lumber and
timber for this port