Los Angeles herald., 1892-09-20
THAT CLAIM OF THE CITY
THE DISTRICT ArrORNEr SHOWS
1T HAS NO ExIsTENCH.
A Full Explanation OF Expert Moore's
Baseless Claim-Routine Business
Transacted by the Board
Yesterday.

The board of supervisors, at it's meet
ing yesterday, received the following
communication from the district at
torney's Office, with reference to the
$12, 200 payment claimed by the city as
yet due from the county on the court
house site purchase. The facts, as
clearly set forth by Mr.. York, seems to
effectually settle the matter in favor OF
the county:
Agreeably to your resolution of the
18th day of September, 1892, requiring
from this Office statement of the facts
upon which advised the rejection of
claim of $4,000, made by the city OF
Los Angeles against the county OF Los
Angeles, would respectfully state:
That on the Gath day OF November,
1885, a resolution was adopted by the
council of Los Angeles city, which re-
cited that $12,0 900 had been paid by the
county of Los Angeles, on account of
the purchase of the Central school prop
erty, and that $99S1.06 was to be paid
by said county to said city by the can
collation. OF a judgment rendered by the
superior court of said county, in an
action wherein said county was plaintiff
and said city was defendant. This
resolution will be found in volume 90, at
page 1874, minutes of the council. 1t APP
pears by reference to the judgment re-
ferred to, that the amount OF principal
and interest at that time was $99S6 O6.
On the following day, to-wit, Novem-
ber 25, 1885, said judgment was satisfied
by an endorsement of the district attor-
ney, wherein it is stated that it had
been paid by credit of that amount on
the purchase by the county from the
city of the Central school property. This
action was numbered 2790.
The vote of the city council allowing
this credit on the cancellation OF said
judgment, seems to have been unani-
nous. The motion to make the credit
was made by Mr.. Hamilton, and the fol-
lowing gentlemen voted therefor:
Messrs. Biscailuz, Bulls, Day, French,
Hamilton, Holbrook, Lambie, McGarry,
Santee and Sinsabaugh. There were no
negative votes.
The amount of credit, to-wit, $9981. .O6,
thus allowed, added to the amount paid
by the county to the city. equaled sum
total of exactly $4,000, the purchase
price of the property.
~ tAASASiOtS AuAy oPPSoAc sloe thO
county paid the full consideration for
said property, and that the claim OF
$1,000 for principal and interest. now
made by the city against the county, is
groundless. Respectfully submitted,
JAMES MCLACHLAN,
District Attorney.
By Waldo ID. York, deputy.
Contractor W. s. Arnold was granted
20 days additional time for the COM
pletion OF his contract for the stonework
around the court house grounds.
A petition for the vacation of certain
streets in the Gail, Bolt, Woodworth
and Platt tract, was set for hearing
on October 9th.
A petition from E. A. Silvey and
others for new irrigation district, to be
known as the Manzana Irrigation dis
trict, was set for a hearing on Septem-
Der 29th.
The territory embraced in Antelope
school district was annexed to Del Sur
district, the former district not having
opened and maintained school during
the year ending June 80, 1892.