The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-12-22
The Election OF The Former as Inspector
ofPIumbinS Recalls The Legal Contest.
REFUSED TO GRANT HIN 4 LICENSE
Because He Had Violated the City Ordi-
nance-He Was Awarded DaInagesin a
Suit Against the superintendent In
the sum of Sf,5OO-The City
Council Sustained Mr.. Boiling.


had found a iron water pipe running INTO
the house four feet under ground In direct
violation OF the city ordinance wmcn
provides that lead pipe Is to be used
ana that It Is 20 be laid two ffet deep.
It. was ascertained that Mr.. Landers had
done the original work and he was report
ed TO the Police Court for violating the
city ordinances. He denied his guilt ana
pleaded the statute of limitations.
Mr.. Charles T.. Boiling, the Superintend-
ent of the Water Works claims to have
the right under the city ordinances TO
issue plumbing licenses and he Informed
Mr. Landers that unless he would sub
stitute lead pipe for the iron one and lay
Il properly he would not give him a
license Mr Landers then appealed TO
the Committee on Water before when
he appeared with his counsel, Mr. l.. o.
Wendenburg.
At this meeting Colonel John b. Cary
asked Mr.. Landers whether 1t was MS
intentions TO violate the city ordinances
when he signed for the work on the books
OF the Water Department. Mr.. Landers
answered I'm the affirmative and added
that this was the only way In which ne
could underbid his competitors. lie
knew II was a violation AMI the commit
tee theieupCn unanimously sustained the
Superintendent in refusing TO issue
license to Mr.. LaEdcrs.
LICENSE AGAIN REFUSED.
Shortly afterwards. a Mr.. Holzhauer a
timer. applied for a plumbing license,
saving that he was not plumber. but
that he would employ Mr. Landers in
that capacity. lie was told by the SUI
nariatendent that the latter did not know
whether he could give him license, but
that he would consider the matter, Mr.
Boiling then consulted the city Attorney,
Mr. Meredith. who advised his 10 notify
Mr.. Holzhauer that he would give him
license. If he would employ a practical
and reliable plumber, but that he would
not do 1t If he employed Mr.. Landers' VINO
had cen refused a license.
Mr. Holzhauer next instituted n suit
I'm the Hastings Court under manda-
mus proceeding compelling the Superin-
teudent OF the Water Works 10 issue him
a license The trial lasted for several
DAYS and the jury was finally Instructed
by the Court to find for the plantin ana
under the order of the Court license
was issued to Mr.. Hozhauer. city At
tornev Meredith who represented MT.
Rolling in court, said the real issue was
between Mr. Landers and NJ. Boiling and
the latter under the instruction OF the
court also issued a license to Mr. Landers
The result was that Mr. Holzhauer did
not go into the plumbing business IN CON
nection with the Water Works, while
Mr.. Landers continued as plumber.
AWARDED DAMAGES.
Subsequently a suit was instituted By
Mr. Ianders ia the Law and Equity Court
against Superintendent Boiling for $1,000
damages. for refusing 70 issue him n
license The trial resulted in a verdict
for the plaintiff for 81 500 and this amount
with costs was paid by the city. rms
was agreed TO by a unanimous vote or
both branches OF the city Council the
members feeling satisfied from the reports
of the City Attorney, Judge Witt OF the
Hastings Court. and Judge Minor, Of the
Law and Equity Court. that the purpose
Of Superintendent Boiling was TO carry
out the laws of his department and that
il had been duly shown. that the laws had
been violated by plaintiff Landers and
that both JUICES commended Mr. BOILING
i'm his efforts 10 enforce the law.
The following are the letters written
10 the Committee on Water on the sub
ject by Judge Minor and Judge witt:
LETTERS FROM THE JUDGES.
Richmond. Jan. IT, is95.
To the Committee on Water:
The case Of T. NJ Landers against
Charles T.. Boiling, who is Superintendent
of the City WaterW Works, was recently
tried in this court before me ana resulted
in verdict and judgment in favor OF the
plaintiff against Mr.. Boiling for $500
The ground of the action was that Mr.
Boiling. as Superintendent of the Water
Works. had Illegally refused 10 grant the
plaintiff a license as plumber under the
city ordinance, and that the plaintiff had
been injured in his business by such re-
fusal. While under the city ordinance ]
had to hold that Mr.. Boiling erred In re-
fusing TO give the license and was there
by liable for damages, yet the evidence
showed that he acted with the approval
Of the Water Committee and in accord
with the opinion of the city Attorney
and satisfied me that In refusing 10 grant
this license he honestly believed he had a
right to refuse it, and that in so doing
he acted with no malice towards MY
Landers. but with the belief that in re-
fusing it he was doing his duty TO pro-
tect the city against violations OF It's
ordinances and the citizens from what he
believed TO have been a wilful violation
of said ordinance and dishonest conduct
Very respectfully,
T.. c. MINOR.
The same subject came before me upon
a petition for a mandamus to compel Mr..
Rolling 10 grant a plumbers license 10
Landers. and whilst | held that the IL
cense should be granted TO the petitioner,
was al that time and still am. OF the
opinion that Mr. Boiling acted In perfect
good faith. and every step he took In the
matter was with view 10 protect the
city and its citizens from fraud.
| entirely agree with Judge Minor IN
what he has said. ,. r. WIFI.
The following is the resolution adopted
by the two branches OF the city Council
and approved by the Mayor, which up
holds Superintendent Boiling:
MR.. BOILING SUSTAINED.
Be II resolved by the Council OF the city
of Richmond 0he Board OF Aldermen con-
curring), That the city recognizes that
c. f.. Boiling. in refusing as Superntend-
ent OF the City WaterWorks TO grant
license tot T. NJ. Landers in March. 1923,
acted for what he deemed the best in
terest OF the city. and the city hereby
agrees that il will indemnify and save
harmless C. T. Boiling from all loss or
expense from the judgment lately rem
dered in the Law and Equity Court. Of
this city in suit of said T. NJ. Landers
against c. r. Boiling for 81 500 and costs.
That the City Attorney is instructed 20
take an appeal from said judgment 10
the Supreme Court OF Appeals, II he shall
deem II advisable.
Should the City Attorney advise that
the said judgment be paid. then the
Finance Committee is instructed to put
the sum OF sixteen hundred dollars to the
credit of the contingent fund. which the
TOD 70. 20