The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-04-11
OF FICIAL
COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS.
Continued From Sixth Page.

| Of County Commissioners OF Sedgwick
| county, Kansas, which was an action
Brought by the city against the county
to recover certain penalties and interest
| on delinquent taxes.
g. PERRIN Dewey vs. the City Of Wich-
tia, which was an action for personal in
jury in which the plaintiff claimed
s., OO0.OO damages on account OF the in
jurdes alleged to have been received by
him at the hands Of the police.
T. Steinbushel VS.. the City of Wichita,
which was an action brought by the
plaintiff to procure an Injunction against
the city for maintaining dam in the Lit
tie river at point just south of Central
avenue.
5. The Board Of County Commissioners
VS. the City of Wichita, which was an ac-
ton for an injunction to restrain the city
from building a bridge across the Lit
tie river between the parks.
6. Arthur Sullivan ct al. VS.. the City
of Wichita, which is an action brought
by the plaintiff to recover the sum of
$40, O0OO0 damages for the flooding of the
lands Of the plaintiffs by the erection Of
the Sullivan dam.
T. The City Of Wichita vs. Pertle, which
was an appeal case from the police court
All of the above cases were pending in
the district court at the beginning Of my
term of office. The case of Noble VS..
the City has been tried. resulting in a
Judgment in favor of the plaintiff for
$4,000 and costs. which was the exact
amount the city offered to pay the plain
tiff for a settlement Of the matter with
out a trial of the case. The plaintiff
claimed $1,000 damages and refused to
settle. The case was tried with the
above result.
The case of the City VS.. the County
Commissioners has been tried and a
judgment rendered in favor of the city in
the district court for more than $14,0000 90,
and the case has. since been appealed to
the supreme court by the county.
In the case of Dewey VS. the City the
court sustained demurrer to thepetition
of the plaintiff, which was a decision In
favor Of the city. In the Steinbushel
case a settlement has been effected with
the plaintiff whereby tbs city was allow
ed to maintain the dam across the Little
river.
the City has been settled amicabIy and
will be dismissed when reached by the
court. The Sullivan case is still pending
in the district court and will probably
be tried at the next term In the case
of the City Pertle I dismissed the
case for the reason that there appeared
to be no reason why it should be prose-
cUted further. The city has also settled
the judgment for 100000 ,and interest
and cost in the case of Mary Weist vs.
the CITY for the sum of 81, 10000 and costs,
being reduction of $4,000 from the
amount of the judgment obtained against
the city at the second trial of the case
which was conducted by my predecessor
The case of the Rock Island Lumber Co.
vs. the Fourth National bank. in which
the city filed an interplea, is pending in
the supreme court.
The following cases in which the city
was a party were commenced during the
past year and have all been disposed of in
favor of the city, viz: The City of Wich-
tia vs. the Wichita Electric Railway and
Light company, in which the city obtain
ed a judgment forfeiting the franchise Of
that company, and perpetually enjoining
it from occupying the streets, alleys or
public grounds of the city with its line
of street railways.
Second: Oppenheimer VS.. the City, and
Mcfarland VS.. the City were cases
brought by the plaintiff to enjoin the city
from vacating a portion Of Wichita
street for the purpose of the erection of
a passenger depot for the Missouri Pa
ciic Railway company. The injunctions
were refused in both cases.
Two cases were brought on the relation
of the county attorney TO restrain the
city from maintaining a permanent pest
house on the island south of Maple street
bridge. A temporary injunction was al
lowed by the court in one Of the cases,
which was afterwards modified so as to-
allow the maintenance of the pest house
where it now is during the present cpl
denic of smallpox. The application for a
permanent injunction is still pending IN
the district court. The case Of Sewau &
Drake VS.. the City was heard upon
demurrer to the petition of the plaintiff,
which was sustained by the court
The cases of Marriager VS.. the City,
Cadwallader VS.. the City, and keenan,
VS.. the City, which are cases in which
the plaintiffs claim damages for injuries
as the result of falling upon sidewalks,
are pending in the district court and will
be reached for trial during the present
year.
In addition TO the attention given by
this department to the above cases a
large amount of work has been perform
ed in the drawing and examination of
numerous franchises which have been
considered by the council; also the exam
ination of titles OF real estate acquired
by the city by purchase and condemna-
ton proceedings. has required careful in
vestigationS and consumed considerable
time.
have attended every regular meeting
of the council during the past year with
one exception, and have attended at the
hearing of eases in the police court
whenever my services were requested by
the police department. No judgments
for damages have been awarded against
the city during the past year.
Very respectfully submitted.
A Z. HELM.
City Attorney.