The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-23
HINGES ON A JUDGMENT.
The Richmond District Sewer
Assessment in a Legal
Tangle.
SURVEYORS IN A DISPUTE.
If the Decision Goes One Way Prop.
erty-OWnerS May Save Big
Sum of Money.

The assessment levied to pay for the
construction of the sewer in the Richmond
District is getting into bad tangle in the
courts, and the indications are that some
of the big property-owners may find a
chance to escape paying their assessments.
Something like 200 is at stake.
The trouble grows out of the dispute be-
tween ex-City and County Surveyor Fitz-
hugh and City and County Surveyor
Charles Tilton over the fees for the survey
of the work. When the original survey
was made in the spring of 1892 Tilton was
in Office. He submitted plans, specifica-
tons and map OF the work that was to
drain the district to Bakers Beach.
Before the work was started dispute
arose as to whether the City had a right
to run the drain through private property.
John Brickell and Sarah McKendry led
the fight in the courts on a test case. The
matter was finally taken to the Legisla-
tuTe to be Strengthened out. A bill was
passed In favor of the City and once more
the Board of Supervisors tackled the job.
City and County Surveyor Fitzhugh was
in office then and he took hand in tou CHI
ing up the plans and annexlng others that
he considered important. When the work
was finished he put in bill for $S523.
Tilton had already presented bill for
$500. Both bills were allowed after a
fashion by the Board of Supervisors and
the dispute was turned over to Superin-
tendent of Streets Ashworth to settle.
Ashworth had assessed the property
owners on basis that 1888 was fair
value for the surveying.
While the controversy was going on he
paid Fitzhugh $3.50. Fitzhugh promptly
brought suit for the balance.
When the assessment was ready to be
delivered the California Bridge Company,
which handled the work, refused to pay
the $8523 to Superintendent Ashworth.
After long wrangle it was agreed that
the company should pay S5713 and give an
indemnify bond for the difference, the
$3.50 turned over to Fitzhugh.
Fitzhugh at once applied to the courts
for writ of mandate to compel Superin-
tendent of Streets Ashworth to surrender
the $5713.
Tilton filed an intervenor for the money
and insists on the full amount of his bill,
$500.
Ashworths deputies were hard at work
yesterday on his answer to Fitzhugh's suit.
1t is going to cut big figure in the COM
ing decision on the case. He claims that
the work of building the sewer was carried
out on Tilton's maps, plans and specifca-
tAAN oAloe a. any WClO
used the work is invalid and no money can
be collected from the property Owners. If
this position is held to be correct by the
court the Brickell estate, the Crocker
estate and several other property-owners
will escape paying some very big assess
ments still due. The Bay District race
track and several other big holdings are in
the district. If the levy is knocked out
the property owners that have already
paid will pool their interests in an effort to
recover their money. Something like
$1,000 has already been collected.
Ashworth's position in the controversy
is that in the original ordinance, as drawn
up by the Board OF Supervisors, Tilton, as
City and County Surveyor, was designated
as the man who should draw up the plans
and specifications. He claims that Fitz-
hugh's plans and maps were not ordered
by the board, and that ii they were used in
the work the work was illegally DONE
Furthermore, he insists that Fitzhugh
does not deserve any pay, because in a
great measure he copied the original plans
of Tilton. There was one glazing de-
fciency-he left out a large strip of land in
the assessed district.
The matter will come up before Judge
Sanderson next Wednesday. Whichever
way the court decides. there is likely to be
an appeal to the Supreme Court, because
big interests are at stake outside the Sur
veyors' fight for their fees.