Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1893-1895, 1895-09-23


But in spIL6 Of the above protest 10
tOtal disregard Of the rights Of said
demonstrators, the city Of Portland,
through its committee OF streets and
nubllc property entered into contract,
ON the 2srd day of June. 1898, with the
said Trinidad Asphalt Co. and the
Portland Bituminous Paving and I'm.
prnvement Co for the improvement of
dill.re { portions of Sixth street ac-
cordiug to ordinance 1877 and the
sJec,fi cations therein contained, SAID
sPECIFICA TIONS HAVING BEEN
FURNISHED BY THE SAID TRIM
IDAD ASPHALT Co.
As q result of the action Of the
"sound" common council in letting the
said contract 10 defiance of law, equity
or common decency a suit was begun
by numerous property owners to re-
strain the city from collecting the as
sessments levied for the proposed
improvement Said suit being still in
the courts:
VIM. o. Allen and und 4 oflois D, ~, block
| l47. amount assessed 81 .S26lS.
WIN. o Allen lots and 3 und. W % feet
| nI% lot block l73. amount assessed $685. 81.
l.. II. Lewis 10 : aud block ~, amount
VIM. .Pfunder lots s block 44,amount assessed
Mary j. Blist,w lots and block IO,amount
assessed s963 81.
o. r Collins lot block 50, amount assessed
''GIS eyi Hexter lot block ~, amount assessed
ii. Wolf and N. Wolf lot block s amount
The Congregation q Havi sholon corpora.
ton W 81 feet lot block ~, amount assessed
A n. Borthwick and VIM. showers WI lots
3 ana block -, amounts assessed So41.4irano
PA. Marquam lots l, 2, and block IIs,
g2O7g.ls VS. the city OF Portland and @. ii,
| Hurt chief ( police OF raid city Of Portland.
Total amount assessed $40 sSS.Ss.
"As cause Of action, plaintiffs are
informed and believe aud therefore
allege that the said Trinidad Asphalt
Paving Co. aud the said Portland
Bltumlnous Paving aud Improvement
Co. falsely and fIaudently conspiled
with each other aud certain property
owners upon said street against the
rights Of these plaintiffs, whereby 10
pursuance Of their fraudulent scheme II
was agreed between them, that In
consideration that certain property
; owners sign said petition and cause II
to be circulated and signed by others
that said companies would allow them
a rebate on their assessments 10 b'
levied to pay for said street improve
ment, amounting in some cases
plaintiffs are Informed and believe, n
to the whole amount - be assessed fol
the performing Of said work." anc
various other causes are alleged tot
numerous and lengthy to be all quoted
here. They then proceed to show thu
TO cay the leasU faulty II not fraudu
lent nature of the petition for said i'm
provement to-wit:The Ore gonian Pub
fishing Co. appears upon said petition
signed by II. L. Pittock secretary al
the owner Of lots and 4, block III
city OF Portland aud on the date o
signing said petition, said oregoniau
Publishing Go. was not the owner o
said lots or any estate therein aud SAID
Plttock had no authority to 30 sigI
said petition. That l.. A. GODDARD anC
VIM. Frazier signed said petition as th'
owners OF the east go feet Of lots and Z
OF block As Couch's addition. Tha
said GODDARD and Frazier own but Al
undivided J Of said property signed by
them.
That Louisa p. Vail signed saiC
petition as the owner Of lots and o
block l75 city OF Portland, while as I
matter of fact she did not own sale
property. That Loyal b. Stearns aP
pears upon said petition as the owne
of lot and the south 20 feet of lot IL
block l7S city Of Portland. That sale
Loyal B. Stearns Is not the owner o
said amount Of land and several oghe
such faulty or fraudulent signatures L
said petition appear thereon, all o
which the committee Of the common
council were aware Of. But in spite 0
the protests Of the plaintiffs the'sound'
common council acted in colluson will
the contractors TO defraud the city ant
property owners and nov the city will