The herald., 1896-06-09

-
Of the Bigelow tract, thence on Steven
son avenue to block E. to blocks e. D.
and G of the Bigelow tract, crossing
Santa Fe avenue. Freight and Third
streets. The matter was referred to the
board of public works.
The ordinance authorizing the inn
provement Of Twelfth street from Hill
to Main was adopted.
Councilman Munson charged that the
franchise was not wanted to be ope-
rated on Boyle Heights, but on this side
of the river. The terms of the franchise
were sought to be changed SO that the
purchaser need not finish the Boyle
Heights end of the proposed road first,
but the effort was unsuccessful, action
being postponed for one week.
The contractors improving Vernon
street were granted a 10 days extension
of time in which to complete their work.
THAT WORKMAN FRANCHISE.
The city attorney reported:
According to your instructions I pre-
sent herewith an ordinance granting
an electric railway franchise to H. B.
Wiltshire and his assigns Adopted.
Also an ordinance amending ordinance
No. 1897 (new series) relative to the
weights for hitching horses. Adopted.
Also an ordinance authorizing the ex-
penditure of $1,000 for the celebration
of the Fourth of July. Adopted.
In the matter of the suits hereinafter
set forth, brought against the city Of
Los Angeles to quiet title to certain lots
In the Childs tract, 1 recommend that
disclaimers be filed as follows: Ruth e.
Childs vs. the city ct al, as to lot IA, block
IA. and lot 13, block II, except that por-
tion Of lot 13 taken for the widening Of
San Pedro street by a. decree of the su-
perior court Of this county in case No.
5125 Carrie M, Hicks VS.. the city ct al,
as to lot 20. block II, except as to that
portion of said lot taken for the widening
Of San Pedro street as in the case above
mentioned. Emma Childs Dwight VS..
the city ct al. as to lot Z, block 13, and
lots and Is. block II, except as to that
portion of lot Is taken for the widening
of San Pedro street, in the above entitled
case as aforesaid. P. v. Aerther VS. the
city ct al, as to lots % and %. block II,
except such portions of said lots taken
for the widening of San Pedro street in
the above entitled case as aforesaid.
Mary Engelbrocht VS.. the city ct al,
as to lots 2S and "a. block a. Louie J.
as to lot 1s. block IA. lot 8,
block 16. and lot II. block II.
Ozro w. Childs vs. the City ct al, as to
lot 6, block 13. Robert S. Ramsauer VS..
the City ct al, as to lot 10, block IA. Hor-
tense c. Childs vs. the City ct al, as to
lot 6, block 16, except that portion taken
-
aforesaid, and lot Is, block II, except as
to that portion taken for the widening
or san Pedro street as aforesaid. Stephen
V. Childs. VS.. the City ct al, as to the
south twenty feet of lot and the north
fifteen feet of lot 4. block II. Emmeline
16 and 21. block IA, also the south
thirty-five feet of lot and lots 2, IL, 16
and 21, block II, except as to that por-
ton of lots 16 and 21, taken for the
widening of San Pedro street as afore-
said. Also William Massey VS.. the City
ct al, as to lot 2, block II. This lot, by
error, Is covered by the suit of Emmeline
Childs above referred to, and the attor-
neys for Mrs. Childs have agreed to at
tend to the matter. All Of the above de-
scribed lots are situated in and are q
part of the o. w. Childs tract of 200 lots,
recorded in book 8, page 1873, miscellan-
eous records of Los Angeles county.
Adopted.
Also in the matter of the suit Of A. E.
Pomeroy ct al. VS.. the City, to quiet title
to certain land described in the amend
ed complaint, / advise disclaimer. Said
land being described as follows: Lots
19. 40, 38 excepting the easterly foot
thereof), II, 1S, 81 and So. all of said lots
being In the Woodwork tract in the
city Of Los Angeles, and shown by a
map Of said tract recorded in book ~.
page 81, miscellaneous records of Los
Angeles county. Adopted.
You have referred to me communica-
tions from the Los Angeles Railway
company, the Depot Railway company
and the Main Street and Agricultural
Park Railway company, all bearing up
on the question of the operation of street
railways over Wolfskill avenue, be-
tween Fifth street and Third street. 1t
Is claimed by these various communica-
tiOns that two street railway companies.
nnnHQtad 1Indar dfffnranf MN
are operating now over this line. This
V q question of fact for your honorable
body to determine. Section 499 Of the
civil code prints two lines OF street rail-
way, operated under different manage
ment, to use the same street for dis
tance Of not more than five consecutive
blocks. If two lines are legitimately
operated over the same tracks, under
franchises granted by the CITY, It is be-
yond the power of the council to grant a
third franchise for the same portions of
streets. The question, however, Of
whether two different managements are
so operating must be determined by
your honorable body.
The last section in the city attorneys
report brought from Charles McFar-
land, upon behalf of the Workman peo-
pie. denial that any of the parties pro-
testing against the granting Of the fran
chise have any rights in the matter. It
was Tie OplllOI VI councilman hlngery
that every franchise in the city could be
legally forfeited. The matter was re-
ferred to the board of public works.
THE ENGINEERS REPORT.
The engineer reported as follows:
In reference to petition from Anna M
Spence ct al, asking that the grade of
Whittier street, between Seventh and
Eighth streets, be changed, we would
respectfully call your attention to the
report of this Office made your honor
able body July 49, 1895, when we pre-
sented an ordinance to change grade
as requested in this petition. This ordi-
nance of intention to change the grade
was referred to the board of public
works and reported back to your honor
able body with the recommendation
that the ordinance be filed. The peti-
tion of Spence ct al represents a ma
jority of the frontage. Referred to the
board of public works.
In the matter of the protest from w.
H. Rorick ct al, said protest represents
a majority of the frontage affected. The
protest was filed May 4th, and on May
18th petition 4S1 from c. H. Libby ct
AL, requesting the withdrawal of petit
toners names from said protest. I'm
der section 3 Of part of the co-called
Vrooman act Of March 18, 1895. it Is pro-
vided that the filing of a protest by the
owners of a majority of the property
fronting on any proposed street grad
ing shall be a bar for six months to any
further proceedings In relation to the
doing of said work. Therefore the work
was barred before the filing of said pc
IL "a wxgA Z -