The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-03-20
SUGGESTED BY Mr.. RoURKE.
MIR. AIMAR TELLS HOW THE IN
JUNCTION SUIT CAME ABOUT.


Result Was an Injunction Asked
For to Prevent the Issuing of
Notes-Mr. ROurke Was "the Lend
ing Man." Says Mr.. Aimar.
AS has been limited for some days, 1t
was brought out before Judge Falligant
yesterday, through W. W. Aimar, one of
the petitioners for injunction to prevent
the city from issuing sewer notes, that
the first suggestion that the suit be
brought came from Mr.. John Rourke, one
of the contractors now engaged in putting
in the new house drainage system.
Not only was it made to appear that Mr.,
Rourke was responsible for the suit, but
that the sewer contractors owe Mr.. Aimar
money for supplies furnished, which he
has been trying to collect. Mr.. Rourke
told him he could not pay him until he
could realize on the cltys notes, and be-
ing unable to secure any money on Them
he did not see how he could settle. This
according TO MIR. Aimar's testimony, led
10 the suggestion from Mr.. Rourke that
the suit be brought.
Strangely enough. Mr.. Aimar did
not know anything about Mr.
MIR. Karger or MIR. Rose being parties
plaintiff to the suit until after the pro-
ceeding had been filed, and he did not
know either of them personally until he
met them in the court house in connec-
ton with the litigation
The petition for injunction brought in the
name of II. Karger, W. W. Aimar and d.
p Rose, against the city to prevent the
Issuing of notes in payment for the new
house drainage system on the ground that
the notes would be Illegal came up for
hearing yesterday morning in the Superior
Court. The petitioners were represented
by Mr. A. A. Lawrence. Messrs. +. G.
duBignon and Barrow & Osborne appeared
for Rourke & Mitchell. who were made
parties defendant on the petition of Mr.
Lawrence the city having stated in its
answer that they had not been so brought
into litigation The city was represented
by Mr. S. B. Adams.
There was a desultory argument in prog
ress all the morning, arising with reference
to some affidavts which the plaintiffs
sought to introduce. One of these, an
affidavit by w. w. Aimar to the effect that
he was a taxpayer TO the city to the ex-
admitted
Mr. Adams held that Mr.. Delaney, for
merly one of the contractors, should also
be made a party to the proceeding since
he was a party to the last contract for the
work made by the city. 1t appears that
the first contract was made with Messrs
Bryan, Delaney & Zipf organs interest
was afterward bought out by Messrs
Leaken and OConnor & O'Byrne. Then
If rla N M
tract, which he afterward increased by
the purchase of the interest of Messrs
Leaken and O'Connor & O'Byne. Then
Mr. Mitchell bought an interest. and con-
tract for the work was entered into by the
city with Rourke, Mitchell & Delaney.
That is the contract under which the work
is now being done. For this reason, Mr..
Adams did not think the litigation should
proceed without Delaney, who should also
be made a party. The other side argued
that the city had recognized Rourke &
Mitchell in the work of issuing the notes
10 them, and that therefore, there was no
necessity for summoning Mr.. Delaney
Judge Falligant did not rule upon the ques-
ton as to whether Delaney should be made
party to the proceeding, but said he
would hear the case then.
Messrs. Rourke & Mitchell filed an an
ever 10 the petition, through their attor-
neys, stating that when they entered into
the contract, they were led to believe that
the notes were valid and legal obligations
of the city, and would be negotiable at
par value without any difficulty. They
therefore, entered Immediately on the con-
struction of the work, but found they
could not secure a dollar on the city's
notes The banks, they stated, refused
them money, telling them the notes were
not legal and valid obligations of the city,
An effort was made, it was stated to
negotiate the notes in New York, but no
one could be found who would lend money
on them.
The answer went on to state that the
contractors had been carrying on the
work with their own money, borrowed on
their own security, and that they had re-
oeived no aid at all from the city's notes.
il would require a cash outlay of 600,
It was stated TO complete the work with
in the next twelve months. The improve
ment IL was stated. is a much needed one,
and from the allegations in the petition 1t
is not an attempt to prevent the work be-
ing done, but to prevent the city from
paying for 1t with notes. In concluding,
the answer states very pertinently:
These defendants have no interest In
the result of the litigation. If the notes
should be adjudged by the decree in this
case 10 be valid legal obligations of the
city, they viii be avilable under such de-
cree adjudging them TO be valid. If they
should be adjudged to be invalid and void,
the defendants have no doubt the city
will provide for payment for the work in
some other manner
Mr.. Barrow asked Mr. Adams during
the course Of the mornings proceeding:
would you be willing TO say what you
think of the validity of these notes? I'd
be willing to try the case before you"
To this Mr. Adams replied: II don't
think that's fair question
Mr.. Adams made the statement, too,
that he admitted that the city had deliv-
cred a number of notes to Messrs. Rourke
& Mitchell for value, and said it would
continue 10 do so.
After some argument on various points
at the afternoon session Mr.. w. W. Air
mar was called to the witness stand by
City Attorney Adams and the following
interesting testimony was the result:
DO you live in Savannah
Partly in Savannah and partly at Thun-
derbolt.
Where is your home?
sleep out a Thunderbolt but the bulk
of my time is spent in the city.
Your family reside where?
They are at Thunderbolt
Your home is at Thunderbolt?
Yes