The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1894-09-10
DIE CITY SEWER Use.
shall It Be settled or NOt-The Mayor
Favors q Fight


council tonight The special business
will be to decide whether or not the
I Decker. Mullins & Berry sewer case Is
to be appealed
I The city attorney viii make q hard
+ fight to have the case appealed He
thinks that the supreme court will re-
verse the case on the ground that the
amount of the judgment exceeds the
contract price. he says that il Will not
cost more than $500 TO prepare the case
for appeal
Mayor Harrison said today in speak
ing OF the appeal;
Il did not attend all the trials of the
case, but have tried TO keep posted in re-
gard to it. At the trial in July, 1898, the
jury did not agree upon d verdict, and
were discharged without rendering any
verdict. In February, 1894, the case was
again tried and the jury signed and re-
turned a verdict for little more than
$4,000 against the city, which was read
IN open court in the presence OF all the
jury, and none of them made any objec-
tiOns to il.
They were permitted by the court to
retire again the next day to consider
some special findings which they had
not answered, and afterwards failed to
agree and were discharged.
THE case was again tried last July,
when the jury returned verdict against
the city for over $72.OOO. but to make up
this verdict, as shown by special findings
which they signed and returned, they IN
cluded items outside of and beyond the
contract price amounting to from twenty
to thirty thousand doIlars. Section $40,
general statutes, 1889, laws of Kansas,
provides, in language as plain and as
strong AS it is possible to say il, that In
no case shall the city be liable for any
thing beyond the original contract price
for making such public Improvements.
This is wise provision Of the statnte for
the protection OF the taxpayers.
THE city attorney informs me that
under the law, bonds cannot be issued
for judgments and that the city has
only one of two alternatives. either to
appeal the case to the supreme court or
make a levy Of a special judgment tax
for its payment, that he now has Of
fer to make the case complete for the
supreme court for 500. and believes
that he can get it done for $500, and the
case being one OF public importance, that
the supreme court would advance it and
that it would be disposed of without de-
lay.
las anxious as / am to see this case
settled and out of the way / believe that
the city ought not in justice to the tax
payers to pay at most more than the con-
tract price. To now make
special levy Of 5 or 8 mills
to pay this judgment would be a
great burden and hardship upon the tax
payers many of whom are unable to pay
their homes be sold Tor taxes. The
county treasurer informs me that last year
the county had to bid in over $50, 900 Of
tax certificates and that this year they
amount to over $4,000 which shows the
lmpOssiblllty of the people to pay their
present taxes and that they are not in a
condition to bear a larger additional
levy.
IF this case could be adjusted at not
to exceed the contract price and suitable
. =
would not be too great d hardship on the.
people that might be an advisable way to
dispose of the case for all concerned"
The attorneys against the city take
another view OF it and claim the supreme
court has decided that a larger price
under circumstances like the present
ones. One of these attorneys said to-
day:
"A part Of the judgment rendered
against the city in the sewer case was
for work done and material furnished
not required or provided for in the orig
inal contract The largest item of this
kind was for deepening the sewer IN dis
trict No. y. The Contractors claimed
that they were. acc ording to the original
agreement, to dig the sewer AN average
depth of seventeen feet, and that they
we're required by the city authorities to
put it down about twenty feet. The city
claimed on the trial that the agreement
was that 1t should be twenty one teet
deep, but the jury found that the con-
tractors were right in their contention
and allowed them $4,000 for their
additional depth. The object of the city
in having 1t put down SO deep appears to
have been to allow the sewer in district
No. Is to drain in it. The contractors pro
tested at the time against going beyond
the depth which they had agreed to 60,
but were not able to get any relief from
the council or city authorities. They did
the work and the city received the bene-
tit of it, and the jury have found the con-
tractors were right in their claim that
the original agreement did not require
them to 90 down this extra depth. It
is now claimed that the city
is not liable for this extra work, because
no contract was formally made and en-
tered into for doing this work; that
though it was done by the order of the
city authorities and under a claim by
them, that the contractors were obliged
to do il, yet as contract for doing 1t
formally entered into between the
mayor and council and the contractors,
that the city is not liable, that the orders
and directions of the city authority do
not bnd the city This is the main reason
urged for going on with the case. The
point appears TO be purely technical
where the city authorities as in this case
required the contractors to do this extra
work and the city has had the benefit of
it, substantial justice would seem to re-