Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1900-12-14
/ NO DECISION
Was Reached on the Question Of West Side
Fire Station.


erdale addition. which is situated at
the northeasterly part of the city, near
the Fair Grounds, for the inspection of
Council. He stated that arrangements
of the streets was satisfactory to the
committee and recommended the adop-
tion of the plat.
Mr.. Storck said. he would be COM
PEELED to oppose the adoption of the
plat as no proper provision had been
made for the opening of several streets
through which passage would prob
ably be demanded some time in the
future. He further stated that no pro-
passageway through one entire block.
A recess of five minutes was taken
by Council to examine the arrange
ment of the different streets. Mr..
Strains motion that the plat be accept
ed was sustained. Mr.. Storck going on
record in the negative.
VACATION OF FORT STREET.
Mr. Storck moved that the vacation
of Fort street at the northwest cor
ner of the Putnam street bridge on the
West Side. be considered. This was
assented to by the members of Council.
Mr.. Strain then put the motion that
the parties opposed to the location of
proposed building be beard first.
Mr.. Fleetwood stated that he ap-
peared before Council as the legal rep
resentative of D. p. Pattin and other
property owners on the West Side who
are opposed to the vacation of the
street at this point. AS no one of the
petitioners for the opening up of the
street had yet presented any reasons
why this action should be taken by
Council, he refused to proceed until
the petitioners had presented their
case.
Mr.. Storck's motion that those in
favor of vacating Fort street should
step forward and present their case
was sustained.
In order to conduct the affair legally,
Attorney Danford offered the sugges-
ton, which was adopted, that the witt
nesses be placed under oath. AK,
The following persons who favor
the vacation of the street were exam
ined: w. A. Dye. ]. H. Mcconnell,
r. G. Beltz: while those objecting,
namely d. P. Pattin and B. B. Pattin,
were represented by counsel.
Mr.. w. A. Dye on being put on the
stand testified that he was a third own
er and treasurer of the Marietta Man
ufacturing Co., that he had freely and
voluntarily signed the petition. He
stated that the Marietta Manufactur-
ing Co. was situated at the intersec-
tion of Gilman. Fort and Putnam
streets and that the factory was locat-
ed 86ib feet in front of the plat of
ground which is proposed to be vacat-
ed In his opinion the public would
be benefited, not injured. by the vaca-
ton of the street, as at present this
portion is only used as a dumping
ground.
When cross examined by Mr.. Ellen
wood, Mr.. Dye STATED that the ground
owned by the Marietta Manufacturing
Co. extended along Fort street for
distance of 200 feet. He thought that
the fire station would be admirably
and ideally located if placed on that
spot. In response to a question as to
whether the land of the Marietta Man
ufacturing Co. did not belong to the
Ministerial trustees from whom SO
year lease had been secured Mr.. Dye
professed entire ignorance. He ad-
mitted that the company had deed to
the proposed condemned property and
had delivered it to certain officials of
the city.
Mr.. Dye was then excused and Mr.. j.
H. Mcconnell was called to the stand.
Mr.. Mcconnell stated that he knew
nothing about the land being under
lease from the Ministerial trustees. but
that he had warrantee deed delivered
to him by the former owner. He
thought that the occupation of space
S7x40 feet, the dimensions of the fire
station, would take only about ten feet
and would not in any way interfere
with the public convenience. as that
portion of the street was not used as a
public thoroughfare.
On cross questioning, the informa-
tion was elicted that fire station had
been located on the northerly end of
the present tract, but had been remov
ed by the high water of 1884.
j. G. Beltz. who owns property on
the corner of Gilman and Putnam
streets, was put upon the stand and
much the same information was OBJ
tanned from him as from the two pre-
ceeding witnesses. The opposition
made point ia proving that portion
of private property opposite the Beltz
proptrey had been condemned and va
Gated by the city on account of the
L.