The daily morning journal and courier., 1896-01-13
WiELTNGFOR

"
 The situation regarding the much dis oussed Patten case has again changed and the prospects are now that it will be as first intended, argued before the next term of the supreme court ol er- TOTS The facts of the case are too well known to need any explanation here. At the annual borough meeting the case was called up for discussion and conn., mittee, consisting of Attorneys Fowler and Harrison, with William Hassett was appointed to investigate the case as to the advisability of withdrawing the case from the court. Later at an adjourned meeting the committee made q. report of its proceedings and the fol- lowing vote was passed: That the committee be authorized and instruct ed to withdraw the case of Patten vs. the borough of Wallingford from the courts and to pay the costs At the meeting it was intimated that the case was in the hands of the board of wa ter commissioners and that the meeting had no authority to give instructions to any committee to withdraw the case, and that the board, through it's attor- neys, was the proper ones to dispose of the case, however the meeting did pass the vote as there was two or more Of the borough's legal lights present who were particular to emphasize the old cry that i've are the people and must be heard" and obeyed. Attorney t'oW- Ter stated that the water commissioners could .object to the withdrawal Of the case, and that there was TO redress eX- cept at the polls at the next election. Attorneys Fowler ana Harrison LOOK the matter in hand and attempted to withdraw the case from the court ana ascertained the costs already incurred and asked the board Of water commits sioners the amount, S576S, to settle the same, but that board, acting under ad- vice from counsel. declined to give the desired draft. An appeal was made to the board of burgesses and a vote was passed to the effect that it was the sense Of the meeting that the water commissioners adjust the amount in lt question and should the board decline to do so the warden was authorized to draw an order on the borough treas urer for the amount A letter from Judge Stoddard, who is associated with Judge Hubbard as attorneys for the
  states: In my opinion it would be dis astrous to the best interests of the pub lie and the borough In Wallingford to withdraw the proceedings in the su- preme court of error, and it is inn possible for me to consent to do so. am perfectly willing that the borough should dismiss me from connection with the case, but I cannot consent to be a consenting party to the withdrawal of the appeal to the supreme court of errors. It is simply needlessly and recklessly, in my opinion. sacrificing the interests Of the borough and the public not only so far as the judgment already obtained is concerned but so far as damages are to be considered not only of the plaintiff in that case, but of many others upon the stream. My firm belief is that unless this case is proceeded with in the supreme court of errors it will involve the borough in a very large expenditure of money, the amount no one care foresee. I must in- sist that the committee, if they are in power to discharge me, give me a writ ing dismissing me from the case, and if that is to be done it ought to be done at once. and I ask the committee and the borough to take some definite action in this matter and give to me writ ten instructions in reference thereto, and if the instructions involve a with tlrawal of the appeal to the supreme court of errors I ask that instead of such instructions to be my connection with this case be severed by the action Of the borough. I have sent 9, aupli- cate of this letter to each one of the committee, to Judge Hubbard and to the warden of the borough. The matter of the withdrawal of the case was dis cussed at length by the new board of water commissioners and the majority was opposed to the scheme. G. M Hallenbeck, the president of the board expressed himself willing, if it was necessary, to assume and pay one-half or even all the expense to carry the case to the end, as was first intended There is Q strong sentiment among the prominent business men and large tax peyers of the borough against the with drawal of the case, and there are sever al who gre ready and willing to assume the expenses of the case and have il argued in the supreme court of errors EEhe attempt that is being made through the columns of some of the newspapers to make the outside world believe that the mass of the taxpayers of the borough are anxious to have the case withdrawn from the courts is not credit able to the authors Of the articles, as it is not fact, and many who talk tha1 way are laiboring under a cloud, owins to the rntsrepresentations and lack e knowledge of the facts and importance of the case. This committee is ill re ceipt Of q letter which has caused grea' surprise and consternation in it's caml and shows that the authority of thc committee is altogether supreme. Tht letter is as follows:
 We enclose herewith a copy of a no tice filed by US with MT. Anketell clerk in the case of Patten vs. the borougl of Wallingford and others" This is ;ht copy Of the notice filed with MT. Anke tell:
 We understand that some paper ha been filed with you in the above entitled case, supporting to be an attempted