Los Angeles herald., 1892-12-05
CITY ATTORNEY M'FARLAMD,
A Review of His Sins of Qmis-
sion and Commission.
The Condition of the Cases of Which
He Has Had Charge.
Statements Which Indicate Either Neg
iect or Incompetency-Not the Of
fetal Success That Is Needed.
Extracts from Records.

The present city attorney, Mr.. McFar-
land, who is asking third term, bases
his claim to reelection principally
upon the fact that there are Is cases
pending in the superior court and
eight in the supreme court in which
the city is interested. This implies that
he is the only attorney in Los Angeles
capable of conducting these cases to a
successful conclusion. But first, the
statement itself is deceiving, whether it
was intended to be 80 or not. This thing
is true, however, that eeven of the eight
cases in the supreme court have been
argued and submitted and nothing re-
mains to be done in reference to them
by the city attorney. They are ss fol-
lows: Los Angeles Cemetery association
vs.. the city, the city vs. DeHail, Farm
ers & Merchants bank VS.. city, Los An
geles Savings bank vs. city, Main-street
bank vs.. city, city vs.. City bank, and
Los Angeles Savings bank vs.
city. That leaves only one case
in the. supreme court as
legacy for the new city attorney.
And to say that one case is sufficient to
claim Che retention of any incumbent in
OluCO, WOulu OC W LudhC buO OllCC q lllC
Office and keep the city in mortal terror
of an accident to or the death of the in
cumbent.
1t is true there are 18 cases in the su-
perior court, not finally disposed of,
though two (Smith vs. Glass, No. Is, ,492
and Shepherd vs. Donegan, No. 10075)
are practically settled, but the condition
of most of the balance is such as to
cause the wonder if Mr.. Mcfarland
didn't have this argument in view
long time ago.
Among them are: No. IA 1853, the
City vs. Southern California Railroad
company, for damages to Buena Vista
street bridge. This was at issue. May 20,
1891, only five months after he was
elected the last time, and nothing has
been done since-over year and half.
No. Is, ,533, DeGroot vs. City, was tried,
the evidence closed September 81, 1892,
and has been continued for argument
five times and 10 still pending"
No. l6,437, City VS.. Crystal Springs
Water company, he says in an affidavit
he cannot try until experimental sur
veys have been made during dry sea-
son; yet dry season has come and
gone and still no survey and no trial has
been had. In No. 4,l0S, the City vs..
Citizens Water company, en- action to
forfeit the franchise of the Citizens
Water company, the first complaint
was demurred TO, the demurrer was con-
fessed, an amended complaint filed,
which was also demufred 10 and tue de-
murrer was sustained December 81,
1891, and nothing has been done since.
No. II ,55S, Vernon Irrigation company
VS.. City, has probably been concluded
80 far as the city is concerned, although
the case is technically pending. In No.
16, SOL, the City VS.. Freeman, nothing
remains to be done except to argue
trivial motion to retax costs.
No. 11,747, Mooney vs.. the City,
to restrain from grading street,
was st issue March 7, 1890,
two years and nine months ago, and has
been continued from time to time ever
since. No. II, 497, ,Childs vs. the City, was
starred, and on March "a, 1890, two
years and nine months ago, demurrer
was overruled and nothing done since.
Another OF his standing arguments.
No. 1880, City vs. Linde, the famous
Temp ple-street grading case that dragged
its weary length along 80 many months
in court, and put so many property
owners to expense in defending, is hung
up until the legislature can pass retro
active law. No. 1920, City VS.. Tran
tum, is also hung up waiting retroactive
legislation. In the Third street ex-
tension matter, ordinance No. 235, drawn
by the present city attorney, describes
the exterior boundary of land to be be-
nefited, and to be assessed, as follows:
GAN lots and parcels of land fronting
upon both sides of Third street from
east line of Main street to the east line
of Alameda street."
This when there was no Third street
there. Under this ordinance, as per re-
port OF commissioners, the city was to
an expense of $505, incurred before the
report, and accrued liabilities, estimated
at $13S.59. Proceedings had to be
abandoned owing to this erroneous de-
ecription.
The new franchise granted by the
council to the Los Angeles Terminal
Railway company did not limit the rate
of fares to be charged by the company
within the city, as did the old fran
chise, and Immediately upon it's passage