The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-12-27
CITY Solicitor

in the history Of the law department
in several particulars.
/ The litigation arising out Of the TAX
ing OF the waters of Kettle brook for
an additional water supply in 1895, has
been for the most part ended. At the
time of the last annual report, there
were pending about 70 cases on this
account, most Of which had then been
referred to a commission under the
statute which authorized the taking.
The commission, which was composed
Of Hon. Everett c. Bumpus of Quincy,
Hon. William Whiting of Holyoke and
George E. Evans of Lowell, made it's
report in March. This report fur
nished the basis Of an adjustment upon
terms satisfactory to the city of 65 of
the cases. which was concluded on July
3, 1893, Two other cases have since
been settled upon the same basis, and
that OF the Washburn & Moen Manu-
featuring Company seems in a fair way
to be settled at an early date, leaving
only four OF those cases undisposed Of
viz, those OF Henry w. King, trustee,
Lakeside Manufacturing Company,
] Cynthia. e. Farnsworth ct ALL, and L.
Is. Stone, the latter being a land dam
age case.
The law department has during the
past year prepared forms for the usual
contracts and bonds made by the sewer
ana water departments, which have
been printed, which will prove it is be-
/ heTed, of advantage to the city and a
I convenience to those who may become
parties Il such contracts. During the
coming year it is expected that blanks
Tor most other classes of contracts.
which the city is constantly making,
may be prepared.
] The opinion was expressed by Col
I W. S. =. Hopkins, in his annual report
for 1856, that the business of the law
department required the services of an
I assistant solicitor. The city council of
1898 passed an ordinance creating this
othce. which took effect in January of
this year. Ernest I. Morgan was ap-
pointed assistant city solicitor on Feb.
l, 1898. His faithful and efficient SER
vice hat demonstrated the wisdom Of
the ordinance.
a custom established and followed by
F. P. Goulding, in his annual reports,
is followed, and with the list of cases
pending, to which the city is a party,
a brief statement Of the nature of each
is given
There are 81 cases now pending, as
follows: Bragg Manufacturing Com
pany VS. Worcester; George A. Bar
nard VS.. Worcester; Boston and Albany
Railroad Company VS.. Worcester;
Newton Crane VS.. the Municipal Fire
and Police Telegraph Company defen-
can't, and Worcester, alleged trustee;
Worcester VS.. Patrick D. Sexton:
Worcester VS. William Eaton; Henry
M. Phillips, treasurer. VS.. Worcester;
the Gamewell Fire Alarm Telegraph
Company VS.. Worcester; George A
Stevens VS.. Worcester; mayor and al
! dermen VS.. Boston and Albany Rail-
road Company ct al; Soper Foundry
! Company vs.. George H. Underhill, de-
PENDANT, and Worcester, alleged trus-
Tee; worcester VS.. Boston and Albany
railroad Company; Worcester VS.. Ter
rance ]. Hines: mayor and aldermen
OF worcester VS.. Norwich division of
New York and New England Railroad:
mayor and aldermen of Worcester VS.
Fttchburg Railroad, Boston and Maine
Railroad ct al; Charles D. Morse VS..
worcester; Boston and Albany Rail-
road VS.. Worcester: Worcester VS.. Bos-
ton ana Albany Railroad Company ct
al; Emma j. Newton VS.. Worcester
sylvester b. Newton VS.. Worcester;
Margaret O'Brien VS.. Worcester; Henry
w. King. trustee, VS.. Worcester; Lake
side Manufacturing Co. VS.. Worcester:
George A. Stevens VS.. Worcester; J. s.
BigeloW VS.. Worcester; F. H. Dewey ct
al VS.. Worcester; Samuel B. Parsons
vs. Worcester; Samuel B. Parsons ct al.
vs.. Worcester; Worcester VS.. Silvio
! Caspardis; Harriet P. Foster VS. Wor
cester; John OHara vs. Worcester;
Harriet P. F. Burnside ct al. VS.. WoTl
cester; Cynthia E. Farnsworth ct al.
VS.. Worcester; Washburn & Moen
Manufacturing Company vs. Worces-
ter; G. f. Carlson VS.. John ], Ander-
son, defendant, and Worcester, alleged
trustee; James c. Stewart VS.. Worces-
ter; Harriet M. Putnam VS.. Worcester;
an tD1NfN
Granite and Construction Co. VS. Wor-
cester; Charles S. Forbes ct al. VS..
worcester; Worcester VS.. town of Ac-
ton; George r. and Billings Mann VS.
worcester; l.. L. Whitney ct al VS.
Worcester; Worcester VS.. Worcester
and Shrewsbury st. Ry. Co.; Bridget
McTigue vs.. Worcester; ARENAS T.
Pickering VS.. Worcester; Margaret
Lamb VS.. Worcester; Crompton &
Knowles Loom Works VS. Worcester;
Pierere L. Couillard VS.. Worcester; L.
Maria A. Griggs VS.. Worcester; Glenn
ent Como VS.. Worcester; Nancy c. EN-
erson VS.. Worcester; Cornelius Maher
VS.. Worcester; ]. Henry Lea ct al
VS.. Worcester 1.-TWO cases.; Mary Gil
den ct al. VS.. Worcester; George P.
Penniman ct al. VS.. Worcester; Harriet
ID. Brown, ex., VS.. Worcester; Mary
Eliz. Johnson VS.. Worcester: Elizabet
Z. Howes VS.. Worcester; Lucien B.
Stone Ell al. VS.. Worcester; Amelia x.
A. Miller VS.. Worcester; Thomas Mat
son VS.. Worcester; Worcester VS.. town
OF Leicester; Joshua O'Leary VS.. Wor-
cester
Josephine A. Adams VS.. Worcester;
Worcester VS.. town of Leicester;
Charles F. Stevens VS.. Worcester;
Charles ]. Grady VS.. Worcester: Anna
p. Underwood VS.. Worcester; Josiah H.
Clarke VS.. Worcester; Frank L. McCaf-
frey VS.. Worcester; Mary A. Bassett
ct al. VS.. Worcester; Emma c. Pratt ct
al VS.. Worcester; Christopher A.
Lynch vs.. Worcester; c.. Eugene Du-
puts vs.. Worcester; Emeline A. Rawson
VS.. Worcester; Mary E. Liscomb
admir-, VS.. Worcester; Francis H
Dewey, IT. ct al VS.. Worcester; Mary
a. Wood VS.. Worcester; Catherine
Haggerty VS.. Worcester; Edward F.
Streeter VS.. Worcester; Marvin NJ
Taylor VS.. Worcester; Godfrey Four
nier VS.. Worcester; Jefferson d. Pierce
ct ali VS.. board Of aldermen.
Forty-three new cases have been
brought during the year to which the
city was a party. Twelve land dam
age cases have been referred to and
settled by board Of referees. On the
whole, this method of disposing of land
damage cases has been as satisfactory
both to the land owners and to the city
as trials by jury would have been.
One hundred and fourteen cases have
been settled or disposed of during the
year, and there are now pending 81
cases to which the city is a party.
Several land damage cases arising
out of the laying out and extension of
Commercial street have been disposed
of during the year, in which very large
claims were made, with results fairly
satisfactory to the city A number
more arising out of the same public
improvement still remains, to be tried.