Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1901-12-21
THE COURTS DECISION.
Decides That The Surplus From One Street
Cannot Be Used For Another, But
Must Go To The Sink
ing Fund.


ing Fund.
In the case of DIR. Charles B. Henkel
vs.. the Mayor, Counsellor and Aldermen
of the City of Annapolis and the Perma-
nent Improvement Association, Judges
Jones and Revell filed an opinion or
Wednesday sustaining the contention OF
DR.. Henkel.
The suit was instituted to compel the
joint Improvement Commission to place
in the sinking fund the surplss over
and above the amount of estimated cost
of paving College avenue as provided by
the ordinance providing for the city i'm
provements. The Joint improvement
Commission claimed that the excess I'M
expended on every street could be spent
on any other street. DIR. Henkel claimed
that such excess must be put into the
sinking fund which view is sustained by
the court in the following opinion. w.
III Claude and Dennis Claude represent
ed DIR Henkel, and James NJ. Munroe
the Joint Improvement Commission.
The Act Of 1900. Chapter lss, authorized the
municipality of Annapolis TO issue bonds 70
the amount of $l2l,0OO 10 pay of the floating
debt of said city and 10 provide a fund for its
permanent improvement.
The first section of said act gave the city the
power TO issue bonds for the purposes declar-
ed in its title. Sections three and four provid-
ed the method of submitting the question of
issuance of said bonds TO a vote OF the regis
tered voters and taxpayers, and for an election
for that purpose. Section six enacted that be
fore the issuance of said bonds TO vote, the
Mayor, Counsellor and Aldermen of said city
should 10y a proper ordnance specify the ihproCe
Bsent 10 be made with the funds arising from
said issue. estimated cost Of each improvement;
should also provide the time of payment
of said bonds and safe sinking fund for
the redemption otereQr at maturity and direct,
ed the publication of said ordinance at tedSt
ten days before TIE dag Of election.
Sections Z. and 8 provided for the manner
in which the work should be DONE the award
ing of contracts and named a permanent inn
provement cooperating commission. In strict
pursuance of said Act of Assembly. the city
municipality passed an ordinance spectfytitg,
in its drst section. the improvements to be
made, and CAREFULLY estimating the cost or each
improvement, classifying said improvements
under the heads respectively of "miscellane-
Gus, streets" sewers &c,
The second section of said ordinance pro-
vided "Atat Ropdrt Of any Of tie funds set apart
for any specific improvement should Be used for
any other improvement but any uaerpended portion
thereof should be deposited to The credit Of TIE sink
ing fund for the redemption OF said bonds, and
that the premium, il any, from the safe of said
bonds, should also be placed TO the credit of
the sinking fund.- The sixth section of said
ordinance provided for a sinking fund. The
eighth section enacted that none or The c0nteDa-
PLATED improvements excepting the cleaning out
of the city dock where the cost exceeded $500
should De made until plans and specification soere
prepared . sc.
that all proposals for doing any of said work,
shall be duly ddgertised in the papers doing the
c.tg grtnt'ng and proposals for laying all pave
asphalt, or for paving any street, or laying any
se1cer, acere the cost erceeds thousand dollars
| shall be advertised in one more of the daily
newspapers of Baltimoee city, and In every case
the contract shall be drdrded TO Tie forrest bidder.
procided ne bid Is sakfsn the amount set apart for
making said improvement. II logically follows
that the contract for pairing any street laying
any se1oer may be entered into up 10 The amount set
apart for hf purpose, but il cannot exceed it.
Ii the contract is given out for less than the
1 amount set apart or estimated for the purpose
then what becomes of the surplus? Clearly,
| the mandate of the second section directs the
surplus or staeGpeaded portion TO be deposited to
the credtt of the sinking faRd for the redemption
| Of the bonds,
Again there is much force in the Significant
l words, under the head of streets and sewers
| in the ordinance after stating the specihc i'm
pr0Cenelts and estimated cost Of each, 1.-THE Adore
10 include the total cost of improvements upon
each Of said streets" and 1.-THE total cost OF each OF
| said sewers" If the provision in the second
| section of said ordinance directing that any
unexpended portion of the estimate pub.
| liShed should go to the sinking fund as stated
| should be dssregarded and applied TO other
| purposes. would not this. to say the least, be
just cause of hostile criticism by the bond.
holders and be deemed by them as an act OF
bad faith. The act of Assembly and ordinance
were prepared, we are informed. by Nj. Moss
the late city solicitor. and bear the marks OF
careful study and thought, and are in harm
| ony. one with the other. They seem to con
tain the safeguards and precautions alike JUS
| TO the taxpayer and bond-owners and to the
| securing the proper execution of the work
| Notwithstanding the respondents answer
and the able and thorough argument of theiI
| counsel. we can not, after much considera
| ton, agree with their views and conclusions
| but must sustain the REALTORS demurrer. ii
| is, therefore. ordered this 18th of December
| 1901, that the demurrer filed by the respond
| ents, be and the same is hereby sustained
| with costs.
/. THOMAS JONES,
4 JAMES REVEIT,