The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-04-09
IlT BUY THE WORKS.
,.;unetion on Ballard Council
Is Refused.
cercroR SHIELDS APPEALS.
-. FOR Insurance on Lost Fishing
a.~t-Hcafh to Be Arrested For
Not Paying Alimony.

-. west Coast Improvement company
- =. eryuncii OF the city OF Ballard
!. victory I'm the superior court yes
s.v when Judge Langley refused TO
-. uermanent injunction entofnfng
= council from spending 81, 500 OF SO GO
- "a a recent election for new
.-s.sr plant, In the purchase OF a guam
- ~ 5spe and other material which az
srs.eu, forms part OF the water plant OF
- Enforcement company.
~ case has been pending several
-..ss and large number OF Ballard
.sssssuss were In Judge Lsngiey's court
sss.rszy while the hearing was in pro-
i-.es John Shields. the plaintiff. claimed
-. ,he council proposed TO purchase the
- NJ the West Coast improvement
rs-,s.av. 10 be used in the city's new
$50 vhsn In truth Il was unfit for the
$3.50. having been IN use for a long
80 The city council maintained that
- ss,e was worth all that the city In
sssa~i paying for n. and that In making
- purchase the city would do away
- dangerous competitor.
Var the case first came to Judge
rsssssy's attention he granted a tenn
ssrrv Injunction and fixed yesterday as
- Lsy for hearing the facts and decfd-
- rasther 10 make IL permanent. Al 2
.'ssstk the case was taken up. w a.
rs.ss appeared for Shields and ex-Cor-
s~..son Counsel Donoworth represented
y efy council.
= Donworth. for the city council. con-
.,.sx tnat the council had the right un-
q 4, law to use it's discretion in the
rsss OF giving the town OF Ballard a
- s,alt so long as II adhered TO the
szs4,zI plan as mapped out In the ordi-
80 There was no evidence before the
- not even a suggestion, that the
saat.l was committing fraud or, in fact.
e.,f did not desire to advance the inter-
~ Of the city. The council. Mr.. Dom
vsr.h contenGed had shown by the affi-
Ag.t;s OF r. Fl. Thomson. city engineer
n Seattle, and other authorities that the
rsye Involved Is of the best quality in the
verdi and that It's condition was first class
Instead of being Of poor quality and in
second or third class condition. as alleged
AZ persons who subscribed TO affidayits
admitted by Shields.
Mr.. Donworth said he believed that IL
would be a great hardship 10 the city
and an injustice for the court TO issue a
permanent injunction restraining the city
Of Ballard from making the purchase
when for A,sOo a competitor can be done
asav with. and plant secured every inch
of pipe OF which can be used In the con-
s.ruction OF the new plant.
Shields counsel said ne believed that IL
was not the city of Ballard which was
fighting the Injunction case, but IL was
the West Coast Improvement Company,
which was making every effort 10 get rid
of it's plant. well knowing that II IL does
not sell IL now the plant Will remain on
its hands for a long time. II the city of
ballard erects a plant OF its own and fur
nishes the people with water the improve
ynent company will not be In position to
make it's plant profitable one as at pres
ent. The city council proposed 10 spend
st5G0 for pipe which r. not worth more
han S2.eoi all told The $3.50 feet of
four-lnch pipe which II was proposed TO
purchase. could be secured new today for
y cents foot, of s,oo5.
Judge Langley, In decGdang the case.
eh that. while IL was rrlTe tina, speed-
Nations had been made as 70 che Kind
tyi style of the plant proposed. He law
"a not require IL and though they were
iii before the people they were not
hasng upon the council as against the
urc,se OF its creation. When the case
kp came bafore HAM IL appeared from
O. afflday.ts submitted for the piasnan
sast Tie proposed purchase was Tor uhe
na:n purpose of getting rid or a compel
sps ard f.lat Il would be OF no material
sayaatage TO the city's new water plant.
r thaf were true, the court rasd, he
saoagslt an tnjunct.on should stand
ssalrs. the city council. but the counter
as1iavits OF the defendant showed 10 the
enasary. True there was a conflict og
testimony on this poiist. but there was
ssscrca before the court that the pipe
poposea to be purchased would he an all
vantage 10 the new plant. II could be
ssYantageolsly Incorporated in the new
syaan and the purchase would moan
rors than The getting rsd of a coinpet-
Tor.
The court denied the motion for per
ranesrs Antunctson. The plaintiff gave
notice of appeal ard this Afternoon, judge
Langley will fix the amount OF the APP
psi bond 4 question viii likely arise
a. 10 whether the court should grant
sperssdeas bond. wgltsh would enfofce
ne temporary injunction unth the SUI
r~ns court passed upon the case. 1Ne
Plaintiffs consel will insist upon a ST.
perseieas bond. The Defendants counsel
sad yesterday that the defense did not
believe that the court would sign such
bond. but would allow only an orskn-
zry appeal bond.
VIII YOU have TO pay an income taxi
NJ. L trsa-