The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-05-13
CITY MUST PAY.
Held Responsible for a Bicycle Pur-
chased in 1897.
City Auditor Refused TO Approve Bill When
II Was Presented 10 Him.

| The City OF Providence must pay for
the bicycle that was bought by the
superintendent OF health late in Sep
tember, 1897. This purchase caused a
disturbance i'm the sound waves at the
city hall for several weeks and fears
1 were expressed that every employe OF
the city would be soon having bicycle
az his or her employers expense. The
city auditor refused to audit the bill
and suit against him was begun by the
Pope Manufacturing Company from
whom the bicycle was bought.
The agreed statement OF facts i'm the
case showed that at a meeting OF the
committee OF the board of aldermen on
the health department, held Sept. 27.
1897, 1t was voted that the superinten-
dent of health be authorized to pur-
chase buggy with rubber tires, at
cost not 10 exceed $500. and bicycle
not TO exceed $50: that on the same
day the superintendent OF health pur-
chased OF the plaintiff bicycle for $50.
Whlch was on the same day delivered
TO Walter j. Lewis, inspector of nui-
sances OF the health department; that
on september 30th OF the same year. at
a meeting of said committee, the sched-
ule of bills for the month of September
containing the bill OF the plaintiff for
500 was examined and approved: that
on octoper 'th or the same year at a
run meeting OF the committee on the
health department. a communication
from the city auditor, relative to the
bill OF the plaintiff for said bicycle. was
read and after "A free discussion IL was
voted that the committee see no suf-
ficient reason for resembling their reso-
luton of September 27th, authorizing
the purchase of "A bicycle and the city
auditor was requested To audit the bill
Then the auditor still objecting to pay
ing the bill and went before the COM
mittee on accounts of the city council
and stated that his objection to paying
the bill was that the city council had
not authorized the purchase of the BIZ
cycle.
Judge Tillinghast. who writes the
opinion of the court, says: The board
OF aldermen is ex-cflicio the board of
health for said city. Gen. Laws X. /
cap 40. sec. l3. AS a board OF health
they have sole charge of ali matters
within their jurisdiction; and when an
appropriation has been made to enable
them TO discharge their duties. we fail
10 seen any reason why they may not
lawfully contract bills, i'm their discre-
ton. to be paid out OF such appropria-
tion. They are swCrn officials OF she
city; they constitute an important
branch OF the city government; and
are changed by law with the discharge
of very important duties. especially
when acting IS a board of health. AMI
ii is certainly TO be presume that they
will intelligently and faithfully per-
rorm such duties: ard unless il clearly
appears that a given act like the one
i'm question is either beyond their juris-
dlction or is a palpable abuse OF their
discretion. IL is binding upeH-tite city
and cannot be questioned i'm n court of
law. In the case at bar the purchase
was made by authority of ,he commit-
tee of the board Of health the bin was
approved by said committee. by the SUI
perintendent of health. and also by the
board itself: and there was money sub
iect TO the control of said board sufi-
cient 10 pay the BILL Judgment gi-en
for the plaintiff for bill and costs.