The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-12-07

1896, the city of Scranton passed an
ordinance providing for paving Null
berry street from Mitllin avenue to
Prescott avenue. A copy of said ordi-
nance is hereto attached and made
part hereof. There is also attached
q copy of the petition of the abutting
property owners who asked for the
said petition.
UNIFORM ASSESS MENT.
"Third-The preliminary and final as
sessmert upon the abuttng owners
along the line OF said paving were
made by the City Engineer by uni
form assessment, upon the abutting
feet front without any allowance for
the part paved with brick by the street
railway companies, or for the street
intersections. A cocy of said assess
mcnt is hereto attached.
"Fourth-Mulberry street from Mif-
fin to Prescott avenue is of a uniform
width of thirty four feet between curb
lines and is partly occupied by street
railway tracks as shown by the blue
map hereto attached. The portion of
the street occupied by the street rail-
way companies. both between their
rails and between their tracks, was
paved by sail companies with brick.
at their own expense, this having been
one of the conditions upon which they
were allowed by the city to occupy the
street on that portion of the street
between Penn and Wyoming avenues
the street railway company was also
required to pave a space one foot wide
on each side OF it's track outside the
outer rails ard it did so pave at its
own expense.
"Fifth-The defendant is an abut-
ing owner on the line of said improve
ment, being the owner Of a lot on the
southeast corner of Mulberry street
and Irving avenue, the portion abut-
ting on Mulberry street having a 'front.'
age of so feet. In front of this lot the
street railway company has a double
track road, occupying between its outer
rails space of fourteen and one
fourth feet of the width of the center
of the street along the entire frontage
of defendants lot; which space was
paved with brick by said company at
its own expense and with the approval
of the city of Scranton before the
asphalt under this contract was laid.
AVERAGE COST PER YARD.
"Sixth-The total number of square
yards of asphalt pave laid under this
contract, a copy of which is hereto at
tached, is l7,2S9S7 and the average cost
per yard is $1.95, which includes all the
expenses claimed by the city to be
assessable to the abutting property
owners.
"Seventh-The asphalt pave laid in
front of defendants lot by the city of
Scranton under this contract Is a strip
nine feet and nine inches in width by
| eighty feet in length and containing
90 2-3 square yards. The assessment
laid on defendants said lot for the
| paving done under said contract is $3.50:
| this result having been arrived at by
| taking the total cost of the asphalt
| pave laid under this contract and ap-
| pOrtioning it equally on the total abut-
| ting frontage per foot without regard
! to the amount of pave actually laid in
| front of each lot. On portions Of the
| street where no street railway track
! is laid there was laid by the city under
| this contract l5l 10 square yards OF
| asphalt opposite each so feet of front
age, but the assessment for the cost
is the same as laid against the lot OF
| defendant, to wit, S2S6.
"Eighth-If, under the facts herein
set forth and the paper hereto at.
| tached, which are made part of this
case, the court shall be of opinion that
the plaintiff is entitled to receive and
collect from defendant the sum of S2St
as an assessment for said pavement
then judgment with costs to be entered
against defendant for that sum.
But If the court he of opinion that
defendant is only liable for the amount
of pavement actually laid by the city
under this contract in front Of hi
property, then judgment to be entered
for plaintiff for $l6iO3 without costs.
PAVING OF INTERSECTIONS.
IF the court shall be of opinion tina
in addition to the asphalt laid in from
Of defendants lot he is also liable fo
a propOrtionate share of the cost o
paving the intersections paved unde
this contract, then judgment to be en-
tered i'm favor Of plaintiff for $lS5 with
out costs. Either party to have tn
right to appeal to the Supreme o
Superior court, and this case to b
heard at November Argument court
Dec. 10, 1897
In the petition for paving II Is eX
plicitly set forth that the space be
tween the car tracks, for which tn
street car company shall pay, shall b
deducted from the assessments equall
on both sides of said street"
The Objecting property holders clair
it was understood that the propertie
which had the inconvenience of track
in front of them, should derive tn
benefit resulting from the company be
ing compelled TO stand for the pawn
between them. That properties whc
have no tracks in front Of them shoul
receive as much benefit from the Trac
ton cOmpany's contribution as thos
who have to put up with the annoy