The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-06-09
THE CITY SUSTAINED.
Three Street Grade Assessment
Cases.

Yesterday Judge Moore was engaged all
day with street grade cases, and the result
was a victory for the city In every case.
The first was rather uninterestiEg, the
chief point Of contention having already
been practically decided on demurrer. and
there was little more than the formaiity
CT an entry of judgment for the city. The
second case Was one involving the assess
u.ent for the grading Of West street. The
whole morning Yves taken up with legal
arguments on technical points, but IN the
end Judgment was rendered for the city
tor the full amount claimed. The chief
contention was that the assessment which
was made In lsS0, did not have the GER
tificate OF the city clerk that all the re-
quirements Of the law had been complied
with. There was certificate signed by
J. c. Scurry. who was city surveyor at the
time, and also certificate by G. w. Fer
riS, city clerk that the assessment had
been extended on the roll. IL was con-
tended by the defendant that the certiii-
cate had tsea made by the wrong officer,
and therefore was as if ii had not been
made at all The court held that there
had been a substantial compliance with
the ordinance.
II consider" said Judge Moore, "that
the officers have done in substance what
they were required by lew 20 do, and l
can see no reason why assessments should
be defeated on such grounds. have
never been able to understand why courts
have been so technical in their construc-
ton of directions to officers regarding
taxes and assessments. even where there
Is no evidence Of injury to the property
owner by failure to observe them to the
letter. The exercise OF the power should
be guarded. but where there is absence
Of testimony that work has not been done
or the Improvement made In accordance
with the intention OF the ordinance / fail
to see why the property-owner should es-
cape payment because OF mere Irregular
ity on the part of an officer. Where notice
is given To the properry-owner, as re-
CURED by law, and he is then put on
guard to protect his interests, and he Of
fers no remonstrance until years after
ward. there should be some grave reason
for declaring the assessment invalid. 1t
does not exist in this case. Judgment for
PLAINTIFF
The third case occupied all afternoon.
All was OF different character. The suit
was against T. D. Hinckley and others for
the grading OF Dexter street. The chief
defense was that the estimated cost was
about 81 900. but the actual cost was moro
by several hundred dollars, and included
the cost OF bplkheading portion OF the
street, fer pat of which defendant had TO
pay. although his request for similar
protection to his property had been re-
fused. There we're several other defenses,
as to each of which there was consider
able argument Counsel for the city ar
gned that the buikhead was not put up 20
protect the ahutting property but to make
the work Of constructing the street COM
plete; that the character OF the improve
ment was uniform and in accordance with
the plans and specifications. Deputy
Treasurer Rathbun and Deputy City Clerk
Stewart were put on the stand to prove the
records. and John A. whalley was called
to prove that in 1883 the Post-InteIligencer
was the city official paper and that notice
TO property owners had been published
therein.
City Engineer Thomson was called by
the defense. and testified that the bulk
head was part OF the original plan. that
the cost was inciuded in the original esti-
mate. and that the discrepancy between
the approximate estimate ana the actual
cost was very slight, only about $50 In a
total of 81 zoo
On cross-examnation he was asked
what was the object of having estimates,
specifications and plans fled before the
work was begun.
There are two Objects he RENTED.
''Cne Is TO insure that the contractor shall
do the work properly. and the other Is 10
give property owners an opportunity 70
make un1sstiU1S III tfseF 40 not approve CT
the character Of the proposed improve
nent and its probable cost"
Defendant was also called and testified
that after the grading he conveyed to the
city strip OF thirty feet the entire length
OF his property: bat that there was no al
lowsnce made by the city for reduction
Of the assessment. The court agreed with
the cfty's counsel that the conveyance
WAS subject TO the assessment and that
in maintaining this action the city acted
only ss The agent OF the contractor and
his sssiguces.
After argument. the court decided N
favor Of the city for the full amour.
claimed. Ii practically vaiidates the en-
tire assessment and secures 10 the city
about stl zoe yet unpaid or that street The
counsel engaged Were Stratton Lewis a
Gilman. Blaine & DeTriss ard z. H
Peterson for defendants, and Pratt & Rid
die for the city.