The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1901-05-10
which He DefsBlted and the Company
Refuses TO Pay.
". n. Holmes and WEBSTER Holmes
Bring Action for the Council.

W. II. Holmes and webster bolhles
have been employed by the city. The
defendant corporation will be represented
by q. g Bingham, who is their local
attorney.
The case is entitled City Of Salem,
plaintiff W. r. X. Anson and Fidelity
and Deposit Company Of Maryland,
corporation, defendants.
The Introductory paragraphs Of the
complaint state the usual declarations
in relation to the parties to the suit, set
ting forth Tie facts incident to the grant
ing OF the franchise and the considera-
tions under which il was granted and sl-
lese a non-fullfllment on the part Of
Anson Of the obligations contracted by
the defendants. The substance Of the
bond given by Mr.. Anson through the
Maryland Company, is produced in the
com plaint and reads as follows:
"Knowu all men by these presents,
that we, Franklin r. Anson, Of Salem.
Oregon az principal, and Fidelity & De-
plsit Company Of Maryland. a cor
poratlon organized and existing
under and by virtue Of the laws Of the
State Of Maryland, United States
OF America, as surety, are held in
the sum Of $4,000 lawfulmoney Of the
United Slates, for the payment of which
sum we'll and truly to be made, We
bind ourselves, our heirs executors and
administrator, jointly and severally,
firmly 10y these presents,
"Sealed with our seals and dated this
18th day Of May, A. ID. 1900.
1.-THE condition of the above obligation
is such that:
"Whereas, the above bounden, Frank
lin r. Anson, has entered into a certain
contract or agreement with the said
city OF Salem, through and by means Of
the passage by the Common Council
aad approval by the mayor Of the said
city Of Salem, Of certain ordinance,
known ~ ordinance No 37s Of said city
Of Salem, and the acceptance Of the pro.
visions of the said ordinance on his part,
whereby the said Franklin r. Anson
undertakes and agrees TO install within
the said city Of Salem, Oregon, an elec.
trio plant having a maximum capacity
Of at least 100 horse power on or before
the lst day Of April 1901, and that the
said plant shall be in actual operation
on the said date.
"Now therefore il the said Franklin
X. Anson or his successors and assigns,
shall we'll and faithfully, duly and fully,
perform, complete and discharge said
contract upou his or their part TO the
extent Of installing within the said city
Of Salem an electric plant having a
maximum capacity Of lOO.horse power,
and shall have the same in actual opera
tion aud In condition 10 furnish electric
lights or currents TO customers along
the routes Of its lines upon the lst day Of
April 1901, this obligation shall DO null
and void and Of no effect, otherwise to
remain in full force and virtue"
The bond is duly certified and signed
by Anson and the Fidelity aud Deposit
Company by G. II. Wilson, its attorney
In fact.
The complaint, 10 which is appended
a certified copy OF the Anson franchise
ordinance, makes further allegations as
follows:
"That the said +. X. Anson wholly
failed TO comply with the the terms
Of the said contract or any part thereof
THAT the SUCCESSORS and assigns, II
any there may be, Of the said +. r.
Anson, have failed to perform the terms
and conditions stipulated in the said
ordinance or any part thereof.
"rhat before the expiration Of the
term specified for the contamination Of
the terms OF the said contract expressed
in the ordinance heretofore mentioned,
the said +. r. Anson requested an ex-
tension OF time for the compliance with
the terms thereof which the plaintiff
refused TO assent 10, and notified the
said +. X. Anson that the plaintiff
would insist upon a strict compliance
with terms OF said ordinance and within
the time specified therein for the full
tilment OF the agreement.
THAT by reason of the promises and
the failure of the said r. h. Anson
or any other person OF persons
for him, TO comply with the terms Of the
said agreement, the said bond became
forfeited 20 the 'plAintifi, and the said
r. Il. Anson and the Fidelity & Deposit
Company, of Maryland, defendants here
In, became liable TO and indebted to the
plaintiff in the full sum specified in said
bond, to;Wit; the sum Of 5000 for
which sum, together with costs, the
plaintif demands judgment against the
defendants seyeTally,"
The case will come up for hearing At
the regular June term. From the
wording Of the bond il does not seem
that there can be much question as TO
the liability Of the company to the city
/ 4 the sum sued for.