The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-04-28

&k&8I1 " tt9t5Ss tFsSs~ - fft1HHtst7s<'
suas a&siss: the Installation 81 the
Cedar river wafer system met WITH
asfssfsr defeat IN Jasws Moarss de-
garsnsns os the Superior court yesterday.
AZ shs conclusion 81 the plaintiffs sestl-
na0ny III the hearing upon thA raefftss the
csart ruled that 20 ground whatever for
the granting of "a injunction had been
whewn and disnssasad the bill OF complaint
The courts decision waa Ia favor 81 the
defendants the city, the beard OK pabl1c
works and the Pacific Bridge Company.
ffss contractor for the construction OF the
water srssssa. on al. posnts. ard viii prob
ably finally dispose Of the Robertson case.
although sAs sasser<s attorneys speak OF
ths possibility 81 an appeal. The victory
Vas eli the muss grateful to the city from
the fact thai il WAS won almost withavs
~ effort GA IL part. TIE only witnesses
examined we're City Engineer =. III.
Thomson assd Thomas III. Johnston. chief
eGxissss of tbs snoauaisnts Power Gem
pany. both NJ whams were called as ex~
perss TO verify the allegations Of Robert
SONS complaint.
In ssaesssnx the case Judge Moors spoke
highly Of the ability 1f both eaglnsers. but
said that In vtew OF bis Tong familiarity
with the plans for this 1sdar river water
sysssm. The testimony Of Mr.. Thomson
would be gwen the greater weight in In
H4EHtfhk lbN ETafE fR1KtHfHSa fE TIT
PENDANTS ease Was proved. the eours said.
b. a rfepandrsar ante OF the plaintiffs tes-
tisn0ay.
negiamsmg ef the salt.
AZ the time Kolsrtsosas suit. which he
hiea an citizen and taxpayer. Was com
nleass1 the contract for ths construction
OF the wafer system had nos yet been let.
aud a restraining order preventing she cssy
from entering into the contract was
hixned. Later tha case came up on de-
murrsr. and after bearing On anIdaFits
Judge A0t,fn sustained the city And re-
fused Robertson temporary injunction.
The letting Of the eontrscf to the Pacific
bridge Company for subdivision No /
followed. the court dtEsoiving the restrain
tnx order. Robertson. however. did not
abandon sis ssss;. hut asked leave to amend
his complaint by making the Successful
contractor party defendant and IN other
On Wednesday the case earae up for
faal hearing uIsoa tire application OF Rob-
erssoa for m absolute ard perpetual in
ssn.sss ms. h HE e sssssen h q the
pan for tho Cedar river water syststn suo~
miifed to the people and satesi upon Was
the plan proposed by Engineer Renssatse
other shsngx provided for the acting aside
OF - per eSns. Of the gre.s receipts from
wafer rents Ter the purpose Of paying fos
the construction Of the ssstem.
Inc present plAffs bAbffis1H tsAffneI.
Radically differed from that proposed by
Engineer Williams. although in subslan-
tlsI accordance with ordinance s.ssn. under
which the city vas proceeding He fur
thef claimed that the city had radically
altered the financial plan by providing for
the payment OF no; isss than $50 Go per
year. instead al a tss cent III ths srcss
receipts. into the Cedar river water fund
Tesstaeny ~ Ea1taeess.
In their testimony as TO the present
physiea, construction plan, Engineers
Thomson and johnston differed onss a. &C.
the amount az water that would be
brought fsta the eits siaI'y wsfe the sya-
TEN to b. constructed GA the present
plans. and this difference Was principally
In tbs basis upaH which their Individual
calculations Nsss made. Mr. Johnston
testified thai II sa- largely q matter cf
experiment anu 1hsx whiIs the fnassgs pro-
possd IL ts constr aessd might. AS MIR
fhomsoa had testsi'sd afing narsi thar
~ uss. 80 gallons of water PEI day to Swan
lake. and more ttss1 $4,000 gallons per
witness. ol.snlon Mr. Thesasos had "a.
solved too MANY si4aibts in his swB favor
and might ma shst after this MATHS we're
tnsnesetsd and the water tuf1sssi on fhas
they wuH35 nut carry the amount Ar
Tkomsan bad calculated npen
On the other hand. Mr. Thomson testi.
fed that IN making nss calculations 10 had
beer careful - resolve naaay serious
G3AAfS A&AAfsA& HtffsS&s& SAfN WAS &A4t&sles4f
that ths SYSTEM woaiG provide fer ali the
water called gur ny the ordinance
in aestalAg the eAse Judge Aaogs rW-
Hxrased hgs former ctsanf9n. that III the
plans drawn ~ city Engineer Ta0msan
ana Incorporated sEta sae aontract weFs
is arcofss with tbs ordnance velsa upon
by shs peossir ss1e court would not inter-
frFe- he ~as satisfied that the preS4rs
plans were stsr plans THAI had besn adept
eti hs the ssssssgie, though aat the same a.
those proposed By fssnexstte Williams and
Ter thai reason an tnfunetlon would be
rsfs,ss'a ard Is uan~sait granted.
As to the charge IA the financial plaa.
the ssssist held that this ~as tnmatersai
IN view af tsse fact that tire supreme Saars
had already held "a sSsR asT ease taAt the
ssssEnssI bal 3 sight - after ths financial
psaa at sr5 ssssse wstlsse.s FesahInfssinE st
su TIE srraste.
Corporation Cegasel Humphrey. Ats8s~
ues James II l3awv and eS~s>eFl~ss Allssts
seoae*sa N + scess represented shs ssss
iarssag tse tFtas as the KaAerssaa rssss.
RagFkx shssssst q Med tsra pEssaTcsi fsr
Robertson. IL VAS stated ~ fassn yes
ssx4iAx sffsf shs trial tfSst they we're rot
s~s psssassa ~ say whether an appeal
wsssssd ~ taksw.
s.