The herald., 1898-10-16
SILL ANOTHER SUIT
ADDED TO THE STRING IN THE
WATER CONTROVERSY
CITY TO BE SUED FOR DAMAGE
Finance Committee Denies Company's
Demand-Protest Against STOP
page of Storm Drains

At the weekly session of the finance com
mittee of the city council held vestefu.,S'
the following communication pearlns 'ne
signatures of ]. S. Chapman ana White %
Monroe. as attorneys for the Los Ahseies
City Water company, was prese"'eo 'o'
consideration:
Gentlemen: We have waited patient
Nv for some time for the action OF the
council upon the demands presented TO
vou on behalf of the Los Angeles CITY
Water company for damages accruns
from the passage OF the ordinance OF
1896 and 1897, fixing the rates OF the COM
pany to be charged for water, which de-
mands bore dates of July %, 1898, ana
would respectfully suggest to you that
II is of Importance to US that the de-
mands should be acted upon at your
earliest convenience. We therefore
demand that said claims be acted upon.
The letter was addressed to the finance
committee and was under date Of October
g. The committee meanwhile had OBJ
tanned the advice Of the city's attorneys
in the matter and In their report to the
council on Monday Will recommend the
formal denial Of tho demands in question.
These demands, as the communication
from the water company states. were filed
on July 90 and after refercuce to the finance
committee at the regular session of the
council the week following, were pigeon
holed until the receipt Of the above letter.
They are consequence of Judge Well
born's decision in the United Sta tes circuit
court wherein 1t was held that the city
has no right to fix rates of water rental
below the minimum schedule named In the
contract then existing between the city
and the company. On the strength of
this decision, the company puts In claim
for damages in the sum of $3.50, 10.50, the
largest reading as follows:
The Los Angeles City Water COM
pany presents this demand on the city
treasury of the city of Los Angeles for
the sum of s1C5 900, being for damages
aocrung to the Los Angeles City Water
company during the year commencing
July /, 1897, and ending June 90, 1888, by
reason OF the action of the city In fix
ing rates to be collected by the water
company for supplying water to the
Inhabitants of said city, at less than
the amount fixed as the minimum ra tes
in the contract of July %, 1858 between
the city of Los Angeles and President
Beaudry, Solomon Lazard and John S.
Griffin, and assigned to the Los An
geles City Water company. The rates
were fixed by ordinance of the city
council of Los Angeles IN February,
1897, and established the rates to be
collected for the year commencing July
/, 1897, and ending June 3O 1885, and
which ordinance was in violation of
said contract; and this Los Angeles City
Water company was damaged thereby
IN the diminution of its receipts from
water rates. s105.6O0.
The other demand is for A ,5M.5O. desig-
mated as the amount lost by the company
In the period from July /, 1896, to June 80,
1897 in consequence OF the operation Of a
rate ordinance.
The city having appealed from Judge
Wellborn's decision, council will, OF course,
approve the finance committees recommen-
dation that the demands be denied and the
company will Immediately br.-,g n suit to
recover the amounts. Thus Is another
piece of water litigation started merrily
on its way.