The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-16
ON VARIOUS GROUNDS
Pennsylvania Parties Attack q
Street Improvement.
They Claim They Were Not Notified-A
Provision of the Charter Is in
the Controversy.

day issued a temporary restraining s<der
in the equity suit brought by Wayne Mac
Veagh. United States minister to Italy and
Virginia MacVeagh, his wife; Tyron Hughes
Edwards and Janet r. c. Edwards, his
wife; Margaret G. Halderman and Marion
b. c. Watts, all residents of the State of
Pennsylvania. TO enjoin the collection of
$2,05470, the plaintiffs share Of the cost Of
grading and graveling Meek street. The
suit filed yesterday, and the Judge
fixed the hearing of the motion TO per-
petually enjoin such collection for Feb. 10.
The city of indianapolis, Controller Trusler
and Beverly Porter, the contractor, are
made defendants and the bill questions
the validity of that section of the city
charter under which this Improvement was
made, charging that the act of the Legis-
lature which allows nonresident property
holders no opportunity to be heard in the
matter of street improvements is uncon-
stitutional.
The affidavit says the plaintiffs have,
since 1871 owned the Meek-street property
in question; that the Board of Public Works,
June q. 1898. adopted a resolution to grade
and gravel the street and that their agent
appeared July 10 before the board and
filed a remonstrance against the improve
ment, that being the day fixed by the board
for the filing Of remonstrances. The board,
it is alleged refused to consider the re-
monstrance, but proceeded to let the con-
tract to Beverly Porter. who did the work.
1t is charged that the contractor failed to
make the improvement according to the
specifications. which stipulated the road
way should be graveled 10 a width of twen-
ty-seven feet and a depth of fifteen inches
in the center, sloping to a depth OF 1--WE
inches at the sides. The average depth of
gravel in the center is alleged to be less
than thirteen inches, and at the sides less
than four inches. Plaintiffs also charge
Porter in other respects, with having failed
to observe his contract Another point
they make is that the Board OF Public
Works failed to have an ordinance passed
as provided in Section a, of the charter,
before proceeding with the Improvement.
Prior to the serving Of the summons on
Porter restraining the collection in cues
ton. Mr. Rocker, attorney for the latter,
brought suit in the Circuit Court do fore
close his lien on number of the lots. me
fact is that Meek street has been for a
long time something of menace to the
health of the people in the southeast part
deemed necessary 1t covers two squares,
this Improvement running from the
east property line of ,i6 D0 on street eets
street. IT is just north of the old Bobbs
homestead The will of Mrs. Catherine C.
BObbs made the Cameron girls. Of Harris
ried. and with their husbands are plaintiffs
in this suit. When the Improvement was
undertaken all the latter were notified by
the administrator of the Bobbs estate,
Albert w. Denny, and filed remonstrance,
which, however,, was not sufficient under
the law and the Board of Public Works
proceeded TO make the Improvement. They
did not attempt to enjoin the work, but
seek instead 10 en1Cin the collection or It's
cost. This much was stated last evening
by gentleman familiar with the case, who
went on TO say:
There does not seem to me to be much
equity in this case, the rule in law being
that no one should stand by and see an
Improvement made his property and
then attempt to enjoin the collection of the
Indebtedness incurred in such improve
m I1 The federal court has no Iurlsdic-
ton, as you know, in any case where the
amount IS less than $3.50. With the en-
tire cost of improving the forty-five lots
III question Jumped the amount is 5Uk
states supreme Court has repeatedly held
that TO enable the federal court to
the aggregate amounts involved to reach
$1,000 but some single item must reach
it. no single item will run over $500, includ-
ing attorneys fees. Each lot must bear
and you cannot tack the expense of improv-
ing one on TO the other. Another thing:
the city is expressly prohibited by the
charter from being a party in any such
borne wholly by the property owners. The
controller has nothing whatever 10
Ter is an official created by
the charter, which the bill filed In the fed
eral court holds to be invalid instru-
ment. The way il came about that nom
residents are given little voice in improve
Der of insurance companies got hold OF
property on prominent streets through fore
closures of mortgages and INSTRUCTED any
and every sort of Improvement. The Leg
isature recognizing the right OF those To-
cally concerned to pass upon public i'm
prOvements, changed the law and gave
the right of remOnstrance only TO those
who reside on the street which 1t was pro-
posed to improve"
The lower courts have already decided
in several cases of this sort that this pro-
vision of the charter is sound The ques-
ton has never been taken TO the Supreme
Court. A. CT. Denny. who is the local coun-
sci for the plaintiffs in the federal court
suit thinks they have a sure thing on win
ming Either one Of three. points the bill
makes he says, is sufficient to insure n
favorable decision. One point is that the
| remonStrance should have been considered,
another that the work was not done ac-
corling 10 specifications. and the third that
notice was not given before the final esti-
mate was allowed.
Judge Bakers decision viii be awaited
with much more than ordinary interest
AS above stated, Feb. 10 is the day set for
hearing arguments on the motion to en-
Join the collection of the $2O5fIO and costs
IN FAVOR OF MIR. MORTON.