The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-07-04
Light Ahead in the
Kettle Brook
Litigation.
CASES SETTLED.
City Treasurer Pays to Mill
Owners the Tidy Sum
of $657,594.94.

City Treasurer Fred w. White slid
checks for the tidy sum of 1851. 594. "a
through the wicket in his office yester-
day afternoon, and when the money
passed into the hands Of Fred w.
Blackrner Of the firm of Blackner &
Vaughan, the claims of CT mill owners
in the famous Kettle brook cases were
satisfied.
This transaction marks the begin
ming of the end in the cases that have
been bantered about in courts and by
COMMISSIONS since the city seized the
water privileges on Kettle brook and
Peter brook in 1885, The money was
in the city treasury but short time.
City Treasurer White went to Bos-
ton yesterday morning and made lit
tie friendly call on R. L. Day & Co.,
who bought the 100000 Kettle brook
loan and later took the train for Wor-
cester with $706,000 in his inside pocket.
The balance of the loan including the
premium of $4,000 will be paid later.
Meanwhile the legal process neces-
Executions for each one Of the 81 cases
were signed and receipts and agree
ments were drawn up, City Solicitor A.
| P. Rugg looking after the interests Of
| the city The writs of execution were
drawn upon the city of Worcester in
accordance with the judgment entered
| in the superior court through the
award of the Bumpus commission.
| These writs were served by Deputy
| Sheriff James Early, and shortly az
| terWard Treasurer White wrote the
necessary checks for the amount speci-
| fed. When Mr.. Blackmer and Mr.. Rugg
! arrived at city hall, the mayor signed
the necessary draft on the city treas
urer. City Auditor Bowker received
| the demand for the big amount and
| authorized the payment. When the
money was paid, the following receipt
was taken:
Worcester, Mass, July 8, 1899.
Received of the city of Worcester
| the sum of six hundred, fifty-seven
| thousand, five hundred ninety-four
| dollars and ninety-four cents ($657,-
| 594.94) the same being in full settle
| ment, accord, satisfaction and dis
| charge for all claims and demands
by reason of the taking of the
waters of Kettle brook, including
|
| ty-first day of June, eighteen hun
| dred and ninety-fve, undertaking
| by the city of Worcester recorded
with the Worcester district deeds,
book 1470, page CAT, which were rep-
resented by us at the hearing be-
! fore the Bumpus commission, So
called, except the claims numbered
244S, Henry w King, trustee. and
| 1902. William Harrington, being
sixty-seven (6T) petitions In all.
| A schedule of the names of saio
petitioners, together with the court
number of said petitions, is hereto
annexed and marked A.
Frank P. Goulding,
Per F. w. b.
| Blackmer & Vaughan.
Mr.. BIackmer received the money
Ismilingly and carried from the city
treasury the biggest sum that ever
went out in a lump. The money was
deposited at once and the checks Will
be cleared tomorrow.
This payment includes all the Kettle
brook damage claims with the excep-
| ton of three cases. Washburn q
Moen Manufacturing Company at
| tempted to get into the award of the
commission, but many of the petition
ers objected to this procedure on the
grounds that the company had borne
none Of the expense, refusing to par
lticipate in any Of the various hearings
i that resulted in the Bumpus award
The GAINESVILLE Manufacturing Com
pany, Henry W. King trustee, is also
out, and Mr.. King has given notice
/ that he will seek trial by jury. The
case Of william Harrington is the only
other claim outstanding after yester-
days payment, and the Kettle brook
litigation is we'll nigh closed.
The cases have engaged some Of the
most distinguished legal talent Of the
state in what has proven one OF the
hardest fought legal battles of the
lcountry. The costs have scared to
500, 900 for the petitioners and double
that amount for the city of Worcester,
and this arises from the smoke Of the
closing battle.
| The bill of the Kettle brook commits
sioners, amounting to a single item OF
81, 900, has never been paid, pending
the decision Of Judge Hopkins. to
whom the bill was referred and who
has never handed down a decision. AT
! the time the bill was presented to the
court 1t was proposed that the county
assume part of the expense, apd the
county commissioners asked for a
hearing.