The herald., 1893-08-27
BULLARD BOLDLY BUCRED,
He Thinks a Court House Better
Than a Casino,
And Thereby Brought q Heavy DaH
age Suit Upon Him.
The Plan to Build . Fine Theatsr o.
the Court House site Falls to
Pieces and tho Matter
IL in the Courts.

The complaint in q suit for rsthe,
heavy damages was filed at the county
clerks Office yesterday, the amount -
volved being 100000. The action
brought against Mr.. John A. Bullard by
Mr.. John W. Mitchell, Joseph Maiep
George Zobslein. s. Maier and Nine
Ynez FAbbriMuller. Hs
The case is the outgrowth Of an alleged
breach Of contract by the defendant thai
had been made by him with the plain
tiffs on April 81, 1893. -
Mr.. Bullard is the owner OF the prop
erty situated ON the four streets, Spring.
| Main, Market and Court, and known as
the old court house. The complaint al.
! legeB that last April he entered into an
agreement with the five PLAINTIFF to re-
model the building and erect theateJ
or casino, which was to be leased to
them for . period of years.
The plaintiffs proposed to conduct a.
! operatic performance there similar 10
| the Tivoli in San Francisco, with mod.
crate prices OF admission. The bar,
cafe, and other parts of the building
were reserved by Mr.. Bullsrd.
Had the contract been kept, that old
landmark and criterion Of distances to
surrounding places would have been
aupplanted by O handsome edifCe In
Spanish architecture, but IL apparently
was not to be, as will be noted by the
filing Of the present suit for damages.
The complaint is not of great length,
and sets forth the facts and causes CON.
cisely and ably.
The PLAINTIFF have aimed As their
counsel Messrs, Chapman & HAHdricks,
Senator Stephen M. White and John w.
Mitchell. and have fully provided for an
able presentation of their case.
The defendant, it is claimed, agreed =
remodel the old. court house property
into frst-claas theatrical buitding in
accordance with plans to be prepared by
an architect selected by mutual consent.
The plans were also to be approved and
accepted by both parties to the agree.
ment. II was further provided that the
plans were to be subject to such changer
as might be desired by the party OF ths
first part for the more satisfactory com.
pletion of Q building adapted for the
presentation OF dramatic performances,
together with stores and annex apart.
ments for the furnishing to the public
of refreshments and wares OF various
kinds. The work was to be begun "a
soon as practicable, and the plans had
been selected.
When completed the part of the build.
ing intended for theatrical purposes Was
to be leased for 10 years to q corporation
composed of the plaintiffs.
Tie rental which was to be equal to
per cent Of the value, Of the land and
improvements, was to be paid in equal
monthly payments, and was to be for 10
years.. It was estimated that the total
Investment in the property BY the de-
fendant was not to exceed $161 900. II
was understood that the original cost Of
the land Was 500, 500. The cost OF the
improvements on the land was placed ct
$45, 1000.
Alter setting forth the contrAcs in full
the complaint then alleges that the
plaintiffs have ever since been ready to
perform their portion of the agreement,
and have 1t various times prior to Aug.
I, 1898, son notified the defendant, and
demanded him to keep the contract.
Further, that the defendant has at all
times since the making of the contract
failed and refused to perform any of the
conditions therein, and that on Auguat
18th he notified PLAINTIFF that he would
not perform the conditions OF the con-
tract and agreement.
In view OF the central location OF the
proposed theater and building. the
plaintiffs allege that they have been de-
prived of profits to the value OF $1,000 .
month, and ask for damages to the ex-
tent of $40, 900, covering tho leAee Of 10
years.
A second suit for $5965 damages WAS
fled by Mr.. Mitchell individually. It
is alleged that $500 OF this sum 10 due
the plaintiff for services rendered In the
above contracts.
A second cause for action 10 $3.50 a.
legged to be due Merithew & Ferris, the
local architects, for services In drafting
plans for the proposed remodeling ef
the old court house property.
A third cause 10 for $2A76 said TO be
due Wood, Lowell & Clafin, architects
Of San Francisco, for other plaii Of the
/ proposed new building.
Mr.. Mitchell was seen yesterday BY q
HERALD representative and made the
following statement in reference to the
suit: Tho action, which explaiqs itself,
ia the elimination of efforts on my part
and those associated with me. % we'll
as property holders In the 1eighboF-
hood, to secure an Improvements to take
the place Of that old eyesore known ~
the old court house. After two months
of negotiation prior to April 81. Mr..
Bullard entered into the agreement set
out In the complaint, by which he waa
to reconstruct the old court house into .
theater and business block. .
Some time after that, under a sspsr.
ate contract with him and BY his direc-
tions, I secured plans ior the building
from local architects and also, went to
San Francisco and secured the services
Of the celebrated thsatex Axchiteotss
Wood, Lowell and Clafiin. Tho rssult
WAS some very handsome plans for the
Improvement Of the property; but for
reasons best known to Mr.. Bnllard, after
four months Of preparation. - finally
refused to carry out the contrSct, and
the result is this suit for damages.
Daring Aerial nxhibitiens
At Redondo Beach today (6unday),
|. August 9th, by the skillful gymnasts,
Allen and Platt, in their great double
trapeze act, Spanish ring act. flying
ring act, double-single trapexe act.
Splendid open-air concert. Trains leave