The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-12-10
C|TYS LAW DEPARTMENT
Annual Report of the City, At
tOrney
THE WORK OF ONE YEAR
All of the Cases Tried aud Awaiting
Disposition
over 2oo0 Cases of Violation Of Municipal
Ordinances Disposed Of and Oyer 5000
Days OF Imprisonment Imp osed

CityAttorney William E.Dunn handed his
annual report to the council yesterdaymorn-
ing. The document discloses the status of
all pending litigatio to which the city is a
party, enumerating the various causes dis
posed OF, and in addition shows 23OS cases
OF violation OF city ordinances which have
been prosecuted during the past twelve
months, as result of which the sum total
OF 5000 was collected as fines and $40
days of imprisonment were imposed by
the police courts. A brief statement &C.
companies each case disposed Of, or still
pending, as follows:
Mary A. Mooney VS.. Morford, ct al
This action WAS brought several years ago
against the street superintendent and the
city council. to recover damages for the
removal OF certain distractions in Jefferson
street. Case has been partly tried and we
are making every endeavor to have it fin
ally disposed Of.
Vernon Irrigation Company VS.. City
Ibis Case has been reversed by the supreme
court and sent back for new trial. The
chief point was as to the city's right to sell
water outside of its limits.
Capitol Milling Company VS.. City.-Ihis
action was brought to enjOin the CITY from
diverting water from the Ianja Madre, so
as 70 affect the fl wv of water at the Capitol
Mills. The case has been decided, the
court holding that the city could not enter
upon the grounds OF the Milling Company
and divert the water, because our right of
way was conditioned upon their using the
water, but that we might change our right
of way and thus deprive them of wafer.
City VS.. State Loan and Trust Company
This action was brought to recover taxes
from this bank. The city won and tue
taxes have been paid.
City VS.. Poineroy II HoOker-An action
to condemn certain land for a system of
headworks. This case is pending.
d. E. Donegan VS.. City--This action was
for breach of contract and will probably
never be tried.
W.J. Hayes & Son vs.. City-This action
was brought to recover a forfeit of $4,000
held by the city, The case has oeen COM
promised by the city paying back $500.
City vs. Pomeroy Hooker-This action
was to enjoin the defendants from inter-
fering with a ditch which the city owns
through their land. The case is awaiting
decision.
Tahney vs.. City-An action for damages
caused by storm water ;has been dismissed.
People VS.. Jesurum-An action brought
to forfeit the franchise of the Fifth street
railway because of failure to pave the
street between the tracks. is pend ing on
appeal in the supreme court, but the matter
bids fair to be settled by the company paw
ing.
Alfred Moore, Jr. vs.. City-Action
brought to quiet title to tract OF land on
Mission road. Judgment rendered in favor
of the city.
City vs. Hutchinson and his bondsmen-
City recovered Judgment in the sum Of
'$2O3S. 33, and it has been collected.
Heilman VI. Shoulters-Action brought
to test the street bond act Decided in
favor of the city and now pending on APP
peal.
Crystal Springs Land and Water Conn
pany VS.. City-An action brought in the
United States circuit court to determine
the rights of the plaintiff q certain waters |;
is now pending on demurrer.
City VS.. Alice Dehail ct al-This case
was brought to condemn certain land on
First street, was tried aud damages fixed
at $4,000, which sum has been paid.
City of Los Angeles vs.. Brodtbeck ct al
This suit was to determine the lines of
West Sixth street, and was won.
Hostetter VS.. City ct al-This action was
brought to recover certain land along the
river and the city won.
j. NJ Griffith Co. Us. City This snit to
recover $4,000, alleged TO be due under
the contracts of Mansfield and Grant for
work done on the outfall sewer is pending.
Fire Extingu,sher and Manufacturing
Co. vs. City--This suit brought to recover
$524O, claimed to be due for three cheni-
cal engines, was dismissed and the city re-
covered it's costs.
brought to recover something over $4,000,
on account of the failure of the city to
enter into contract with plaintiffs for a
section of the outfall sewer, anu the city
won.
Reynolds vs. Howard-An action to COM
pei the street Superintendent to enter into
a contract with Reynolds instead of with
certain property owners who had elected to
do the work, was won by the city.
Huber ct al. VS.. City This action was
br. ught to test the validity of certain pro-
ceedIngs for the widening of Broadway,
and is pending.
Pierre Larronde ct al. VS.. City ct al
THIS suit is in regard to certain property on
Neg,o alley. The city is only formal
party to The action.
Bridget tlaherty VS.. City--Ths suit was
brought to determine the title to a strip of
land in Third street which was claimed by
Miss Flaherty, and the city won.
Shepherd vs. City-This is suit to re-
cover $4,000 damages for the First street
cut, and is pending.
Smylie VS.. Hayes and Campbell-This is
which had been cloudefl by an erroneous
tax sale, and the plaintiff won.
Nc MILAN vs.. Glass his j. a suit against
the chief of police for 5000 for false inn
prisununent, The case is now at issue.
Julia b .ker vs.. Ci,y-This is $4,000
suit for damages alleged to have been suf-
fered by reason of tile grading of Flower
street. The case is at issue.
Mackey d Young vs.. ity-This is a suit
to recover 1920 for certain timbers left
in outfatl sewer. At issue.
Hendricks ct al. VS.. City-Is suit to en-
join the laying of sidewalk on Soto
street, but it was settled.
Ames vs.. BunsaIl ct al.-This ia o suit to
recover damages alleged to have been suf-
fered by water sold outside of the city,
and the defendant councilmen won.
James vs.. iced ct al. and Basset VS..