The herald., 1897-12-09
THE CITY's LAW SUITS
Synopsis of the Standing Of All Pend
ing Litigation

Synopsis of the Standing Of All Pend.
ing Litigation
When, on Monday last, City Attorney
Dunn submitted his annual report to th
council, showing the work of the lega
department of the municipality for th'
year and the status of the various case:
now pending, the report was not pub
lished in full because of its great length
and attention to detail. The following
condensation will, however, be found O.
value as giving in few words the amoun
of work done by the office and the exac
standing of all cases not yet decided:
Supreme court, United States-Pend
ing, 1.
United States circuit court-Won, 2
pending, s.
Superior and state supreme court
Won, 90: lost, G: pending, 20.
Civil suits in Justices court-Won, 2
lost. /; pending, 4.
Crystal Springs L. & W. Co.. ct al.
VS.. city-Brought in the circuit court tc
determine title to waters Of the Los An
geles river. It was dismissed for wan'
of jurisdiction of the cause and tht
plaintiff has appealed to the United
States supreme court from the judgment
of dismissal, claiming that the circuit
court has Jurisdiction Of the subject mat
ter of the suit.
Hooker & Pomeroy VS.. city-Actior
similar to the one above and now pend
ing on demurrer.
Los Angeles City Water company, et
al. VS.. city-Two cases Of same title, in
volving the right of the city council tc
fix water rates to be charged by the
companies. One was brought to test the
validity Of the ordinance Of 1896. one OF
the ordinance of 1897. The second case
is at issue and will be tried shortly
Both cases are in the circuit court.
West Los Angeles Water company VS.
city-Suit brought on the same lines as
that Of Crystal Springs VS.. city. and
| Pomeroy & Hooker VS.. city, mentioned
above. 1t is now at issue and will prob
ably be tried in the near future.
| City vs. Pomeroy & Hooker-Action
brought to condemn certain land for use
as headworks in the proposed water
system and decided in favor Of the city
in March, 1896. The case Is pending on
appeal in the supreme court of the state.
City VS.. Pomeroy & Hooker-Action
brought to restrain defendants from in
terfering with a certain ditch used for
supplying water to the city. The su-
perior court decided that the city had
right Of way for the ditch. Defendants
have appealed to the supreme court and
the appeal Is now pending.
Shepherd VS.. city-This action was
brought to recover damages in the sum
of $4,000 alleged to have been caused
plaintiffs property by the making OF
the First street cut. Decided in favor
of the city in February.
Dehail VS.. city-Suit brought to en1oin
the street superintendent from selling
plaintiffs property for delinquent
street assessment. The case was ap-
pealed to the supreme court and decided
in favor Of the city on the I'd Of this
month.
Smith vs. city-Action for $4,000 dam
ages alleged to have been caused by the
grading of Broadway north Of Temple
street. The case is at issue and will
probably be tried within the next few
months.
Harvey vs.. city-Action for S2S44 dam
ages alleged to have been caused by the
grading of Olive street. The case was
decided in favor of the city.
Niles VS.. city-Action brought to de-
termine whether or not a certain strip
of land between Washington and Twen-
ty-first streets, and claimed by the city
as a portion Of Trinity street, was pri-
vate property or public street, as
claimed by the city. The superior court
decided that the land was part Of a
public street and plaintiffs have ap-
pealed the case to the supreme court
McKeeby VS.. city-Suit brought to re-
cover $1,000 damages alleged to have been
caused by the taking Of certain land for
the grading Of Hill street. The suit was
tried and decided in favor Of the city,
but has been appealed to the supreme
court.
City vs. City Water company ct al
This action was brought to quiet title
to the waters Of the Los Angeles river.
1t involves all the important questions
relative to the title to the waters of the
Los Angeles river. The case will be
tried on February 90, 1898.
City VS.. Leavis, ct al.-This case was
brought to condemn land for Lake Shore
avenue. The judgment of the superior
court, in favor of the city, was affirmed
by the supreme court Dec. 2.
City VS.. Kysor-Action brought to
quiet title to what is known as Central
park" in Vernon. The suit was decided
in favor of the defendant, the court
holding that the land was private prop
erty. The city has appealed the case
to the supreme court.
City VS.. West Los Angeles Water COM
pany-Suit similar to the one of the city
VS.. City Water company. 1t is now at
issue and will be tried during the coming
year.
Ramish, ct al, vs. Hartwell (city
treasurer)-The suit was brought to de-
termine the method of procedure in the
sale Of property for delinquent pay
ments on street bonds. The suit was
tried and the treasurer ordered to sell
the property. 1t has been appealed to
the supreme court for final determina-
ton of the point in question.
A Chicago Failure
| CHICAGO, Dec. 8.-Horton Gilmore, M.
q.