The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-09-16

In the equity case between Charles
s. Lowrey, plaintiff. and the City of
Scranton and George Mcdonald defen-
dants, Familiarity known as the Prov
idence paving case, the answer of the
defendants will be filed this morning
by their attorneys, City Solicitor NJ.
a. MCKINLEY, A. A. Vosburg and Major
Everett Warren.
The answer will not go into partic-
ular contentious. 1t will simply deny
in a general way the allegations of the
plaintiff. which it is proposed to dis
prove. and exhibit various afiidavits
and other papers which will be used
in the arguments to back up their
avermcnts.
In answer to the allegation that the
vote on the kind of pave to be laid
was fraudulent, the defendants present
at ''EXhibit b. the following petitions:
The undersigned for themselves and
other property holders along the line, re-
spectfully represent that they have long
realized the urgent need of paving the
| highway known as Providence road and
that portion of North Main avenue be-
| ginning at the southwesterly line of lands
| of N V. Thompson and from thence to
| the northeastei1y end of said North
Main avenue and being desirous of avail
| ing ourselves of the privilege granted 10y
| your honorable bodies of deciding the
| kind of pavement that should be used
! vitrifed brick, stone block or asphalt;
| called by advertising in the Providence
| Register and other papers, meeting to
| be held in Fenner & Chappels hall, Jan.
! uary 10, 1898.
ATTENDANCE WAS LARGE.
There was a large attendance at this
meeting, fifty or sixty signatures of prop
| erty holders stating their preference for
| brick or asphalt which is hereto attached
| 1t is proper to state here that some of
these signatures are by authorized proxy.
| and also your petitioners further state
| that Notwithstanding this publicly called,
| open and legitimate meeting for a speci-
fic purpose, u subsequent paper has been
| secretly circulated for signatures by a
| well known advocate of asphalt pave and
one whose actions have ever been III
| imical to the public welfare of Provi-
| dencc.
| Should this attempt at Circumventng
the wishes of the property holders bo laid
before you we hope 1t will meet with the
| fate 1t deserves. A typed copy of the
original paper aforesaid will for convent
ence of reference accompany it.
The plaintiffs charge is that a paper
was circulated among the property
holders to get them to sign for the lay
ing of a pave. Instead of circulating
another petition when the councils di-
rected the work to be done over the
property holders head. this old petit
ton, in which a majority of the prop
erty holders had voted for brick, was
hunted up and re- cirC ulated for fur
ther signatures. Thus, it is claimed,
only part of the signers had privi-
l.. 4
was to be laid, under the ordinance
now in question.
The signatures accompanying the pc
tition show a majority of the foot
frontage" voting for brick.
WHAT THEY RELY ON.
As previously stated in The Tribune
the defendants will rely for victory
upon their ability to show that the law
of 1895 is only an extension and not a
supplement of the Act of 1859 and that
a city of the third class can choose
which of the laws it will operate un.
der when making an improvement such
; as paving a street. If this is proven
it makes a three-fourths vote uneces
sary, the Act of 1889 requiring only ;
two-thirds vote. The ordinance il
drawn under the Act of 1889.
1t will also be shown that all of th'
ordinance, excepting Section 49,"
clause relating as to how the street ca
company shall pave between it's tracks
e received a three -fourths vote. Thi
clause was tackled on after the ordi
f nance has virtually passed councils, an
S through an oversight was given onl
fifteen votes. The defendants hope t
= be able to have court declare that thi
t clause can be eliminated from the ord
e