The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-08-26
PROVIDENCE PAVE
WILL BE HELD UP
ATTORNEYS FOR YKoPERTY
HOLDERS VERY CONFIDENT.
The Bill in Equity Attacking the
Validity of the Ordinance and the
Contract VIII Be Filed Today.
The Improvement Was Affirmed
by Only Fifteen Votes in Common
Council When 1t Should Have Re-
ceived Three-Fourths Vote of the
Members Elected.

Today Attorneys I. II. Burns and
O'Brien and Kelly will file the bill in
equity in the Providence pave case.
Charles s. Lowrey is the protesting
property holder who will appear of re-
cord as the plaintiff and the city of
Scranton and Contractor George Nc
Donald are named as the defendants.
The bill goes on to recite that the
plaintiff owns a property on the corner
of North Main avenue and Jones street
on the line of the contemplated i'm
provement; that the city of Scranton
by ordinance of June 9, 1898, directed
that Providence road from Court street
to North Main avenue and North Main
avenue from Bulls Head to the city
line be asphalted that an assessment
has been made by the city engineer
against the abutting properties, which
assessment is to be entered against
them as a lien; that the contract for
the paving has been let to George Nc
Donald and that he is about to enter
upon the work.
The plaintiff then alleges that the
passing of the ordinance and letting
of the contract was entirely illegal
and void and gives the following as
his reasons for the contention:
REASONS ADVANCED.
(a) No petition of the owners of prop
erty fronting and abutting on said street
was ever presented to the said councils
of the said city requesting that the said
streets be paved as provided by law.
(b) The alleged ordinance providing for
the paving of said streets was not passed
in both branches of the council by a
three-fourths vote of all the members
elected to each branch of said councils,
in that but fifteen votes were cast in
favor of said ordinance on its final pass
age in the common council, although the
whole number of councilmen elected to
said common council is twenty-one
(c) The alleged ordinance above men
toned providing for The laying of said
pavement was not advertised for thirty
days from the date of it's introduction
and copies thereof published for ten con-
secutive days Immediately following It's
introduction as provided by law.
I'D Before the passage of the said or
dinance 1t became the duty of the city
of Scranton to submit to the property
owners along the line of this improve
ment, the question as to what kind OF
pavement they preferred. A paper was
presented to the councils purporting to be
the choice of said property owners and in
favor of vitrified brick, but said paper
was utterly fraudulent and void as your
orator Is informed and verify believes,
| for the reason that the said paper was
| never submitted to the property owners
| themselves, but was manufactured by
| parties interested.
CAUSE TROUBLE AND EXPENSE.
Further it is alleged by the plaintiff in
| his bill: THAT If the city of Scranton
| is allowed to levy and assess against the
| property of your orator and TO cause a
lien to be filed against the property Of
| your orator for the collection thereof,
without authority of law, 1t will have the
| effect of causing your orator as well as
| other property owners similarly affected
| great trouble, expense and nuisance, and
such illegal as sessment and lien will be a
| cloud upon the title of your orator In
| the said real estate and in the collection
| of said lien and other liens of a similar
nature multiplicity of suits will neces.
| sarily be required to be brought. Thai
the said George Mcdonald, as your orator
| is informed and verify believes, proposes
to enter upon said street in front of youi
| orators premises, dig up and obstruc
The same in preparing the same for paw
ing and in the laying of said pavement
| which obstruction would interfere will
| your orators use Of said street and woulC
| obstruct his il gress and egress to his saiC
| lot and would constitute a public nuis
|
illegal as above set forth.
| Wherefore, your orator prays: First
That an injunction be issued restrainin!
the said defendants from filing lien
against your orators property or in an,
manner proceeding under the authorit,
of the ordinance above set forth to collec
from your orator any sum of money II
payment for the improvement as abov
set forth, and to restrain the said con
tractor, George Mcdonald, from dggini
up, obstructing on in any manner interfcr
ing with the street in front of your ora
tors property. Second.-After prope
hearing and determination a decree b
made declaring the said ordinance an
proceedings hereunder null and void
| Third-For such other and further relic
as to tho court may seem just and prope;
THEY ARE CONFIDENT.
The PLAINTIFFS attorneys are confiden
of being able TO defeat the paving pro
ject. Any one of reasons given, the,
say, would be sufficient to annul tn,
contract but they place their creates
reliance for victory upon their abilit,