The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-08-30
IN THE GLENWOOD CASE.
Copy of Special Master Aliens Ne
port Filed Yesterday.
REPORTS OF RECEIVER ADOPTED.
Action Against Members OF the CORNER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Am-
provements-form OF Deed.

| Special Master A c. Allen yesterday
filed his report In the district court on
matters referred to him by Judge >. H.
Brashear in the case OF o. c. Drew YER
sus the Hous-on Cemetery company ana
others, which will prove of interest 10 the
lotholders and htigants especially and the
public generally:
| No. Is. $500. c. Drew ct al vs.. Houston
Cemetery company ct al In district court
Of Harris county. Texas. r,,sra -,
To tie Hon. 3. IL. brashear. Judge Oh
Said Court;
Now comes A. C. Allen. special master
! In This cause. and files th.s, ms report,
On the maulers feferred 10 MN IN your
hcncr's order Of reference together wlth
the evidence taken glNlns as feQutsleu'
C nclus.ons OF fact. as we'd as OF iaw
llrst--The master recommends the adop-
ton OF all reports Of the receiver hereto
fore iiled in this cause, The master mus
that the bridge over dhe iavlne or gorge
at the entrance 10 Glenwood cemetery Is
N very bad condition anu most HkeIy IN
a dangerous condition. Ihal Il ptIuSe OF
some means OF crossing said raVlne or
gorge IS absolutely necessary IN order TO
carry out the business for which the GEM
etefy company 10 inCorpora ted me cyl
dence shows that the portion OF the
grounds in which the dead are inferred
coli only ne reached by crossing SAID Ia-
y ne or gorge. and at the point where the
Old bridge stands is the main and only
auitub,e entrance 10 the grounds. And In
as a matter of law. that the receiver
should be authorized to construct u suit
able and safe BRUCE over said ravtne or
gorge.
1here have been submitted three sets of
plans and specifications for said bridge,
and, taking into consideration the price
OF ulch. Uhe evidence shows the plan and
lspecincatlonS submitted by The king
Bridge company TO be the most appro-
pirate, ard the master recommends that
"a bridge in accordance with the plan and
speGlitca ions as submitted by the King
Bridge company be erected And he rec
ommendS that the receiver he authorized
TO invite bids and estimates Tor the
bridge on such plans ana that the plans
ANA spcciiicB-- ons be required 10 be made
iuH and in detail 50 that u contract can
The master recommends. In case this
report is adopted, the issuance of receiv-
ers certificates in amount sufficient to
cover the cost of siich bridge as IS pro-
posed 10y the King Bridge company. as the
evidence shows there is no money In
ne rsgsiver's hands that can be applied
IN this connection tho master begs
leave TO report the suggestion made by
captain Howe. one of the Witnesses, that
H. would be well no inquire mo the COST
OF Ming In said ravine or gorge with dirt
and building culvert throagf which the
water could pass. that this would be as
durable as bridge and could he erected
at cheaper cost, pi cVding the dirt would
not nave TO he carted too far; and, accori-
ms 10 the estimate furnished such nlling
IN and culvert would cost about $3.50
without including cost Of hand rails and
posts
second. The master finds that the ELAN
kng Bridge company is a suitable kind
of bridge for the purposes required.
n-rimln respect to he form OF deed
recommends u form Of de,-i substantially
~, lhe one, returned herewith and marked
"LNhlnit A."
for ae'essments. the Instruments under
which they hold convey a lot. and in
some cases the use only OF the lot, hut
Ia an -h sc instances the rrant is subject
10 the Observance on the part of the pur-
ciA9cr OF c-rtadn rules and rcgula tions.
one 1T which - that IAN annual assess
mcnt Of So for each lot 2oN2u, and pro rata,
'hal! Toe made on each loNhodor." which
shall b, appropriated for the purposes VI
* ep!ug tie grounds in order, and NOT
witnstnudiug ehe Imperative language
used IN ms clause OF the deed to Ia, rl-
irci mat the assessment shall be lev
a. the master is Of the, opinion that
.he proper construction OF the same. when
We wed IN the light of the charter of said
company. l. directory merely, the CHAR
ten showing that another fund may he
applied Tor the same purpose thai as
sos'ments may be made, and there ne-
iuE no evidence before the master that
any as~essments have been made, the
minute book being out of the jurisdiction
OF the court, 1t can not be said that there
L. amy liability on the part of any lot
holder Ga pay any claim for assessncnt.
Inc initial step is to levy the as ss-
II tut. aud unless this is done /, seems no
suiI would lie against n lotholder Quad
alulse X 5. A. X. Stock Assn, VS. Nesi
a. IaH. lbl)
That the assessment. although appar-
emily imperative under said clause of
said deed Is not 20 in fact Is borne ont
by section 9. p. II OF the charter of said
company wherein il il provided iha. n
''perma neut trust fund" be Accumulated
by setting aside 10 .er cent of all sale;
Of lots. and the Investment of
such fund is drocted-tho intera It