The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-04-29
SEWER DISPUTE
AIRED IN COUNCILS

John Waternelu AppearS oohoAo
Common Council with Complaint
Against City Engineer for Dis
connecting the Sewer the Former
Laid-Interesting Colloquoy Be-
tween Mr.. Waterfield and City
Solicitor stuart--The Matter Re.
ferred.
A dispute over the sewer connection
made by John waterfield on his proper
tv on Eighth avenue was given an In
terested airing before Common 'coun-
ell last night. Once or twice there was
a crossing of swords by City Solicitor
Stuart and Mr.. Waterfeld that was
somewhat sharp, infusing some life ana
spirit into an otherwise lifeless council
meeting.
1t appears that some time ago. 1t Is
five or six years. when the sewer was
laid along Mr. Waterfield's property,
he was assessed for the Improvement at
the time, but he did not connect with
the sewer. A rule for Judgment for the
amount of the assessment $40 was
served on Mr.. Waterneld. who through
his counsel Major Warren, filed an
affidavit of defense. The matter rested
at this stage, and there was no action
taken until a few days ago, when MI.
waterfield, who did what lie supposed
was right, went ahead and connected
with the sewer When this was as
certained by the city officials, the city
solicitor informed the mayor that Nlr
Waterfield was enjoying the benefits
of the sewer without paying Tor the
same. The mayor acting on this hint,
directed City Engineer I<upp. yesterday
morning, to disconnect the spur OF pipe
laid by Waterfield Il few days ago.
This was done quite effectively some-
time yesterday morning before o'clock
by the city engineers force, who dug
down to the pipe and smashed the con-
necton.
1t was this that brought Mr.. Water
field before council last night. He was
given the floor, and made Il somewhat
lengthy talk in the course of which he
held that inasmuch as there was q
lien against his property for the cost
of the sewer. the city was exceeding its
rights when it broke the sewer pipe lie
laid Il few days before. He insisted
that if the city was to interpose at all,
it was in the courts where there was IL
lien against his property which could
be readily collected. He could see no
justice in destroying his sewer con-
nection when the city was protected by
the lien or the judgment. in closing he
charged that he was being made a tar
get of for the spite of the city solicitor
merely because he had suits against the
city several years ago.
When Mr.. Warerfield concluded, City
Solicitor Stuart was sent for and OPEN
ed with Il somewhat different story to
the aggrieved tax payer.
Mr. Stuart's explanation was that
Mr.. Waterfeld had not paid his sewer
assessment and that the proposition
was quite simple If Mr.. Watertield
wanted the sewer. let him pay for it
the same as every other tax payer. If
he was not willing to settle, then let
him do without the sewer
Mr. Stuart explained further that
there was no lien against NJ. Water
fields property. Judgment had not
been secured against him; though IA
rule for collection had been granted. The
suit for the collection of the assess
ment was pending in court. OF the
TWO methods of dsposing of the matter,
the one followed by the city yesterday.
namely, breaking the sewer connection
was the easier and the surer.
The city solicitor admitted that Mr.
Wateriield was willing to pay the
amount of the assessment yesterday in
order to prevent the city engineers
men from breaking the pipe, but he was
not willing to pay the costs, which
amounted to about ten dollars. This
arrangement, Mr.. Stuart declared, he
had no authority only to accept or APP
prove. This was matter for councils
TO dispose of. 1t might remit the costs,
aud it might remit the full amount Of
the assessment, but he, Mr.. Stuart, had
no authority in this direction. His duty
was plain and he performed it.
1T was manifest that Mr.. Waterlield
believed that the city had Il lien against
his property for the amount Of his as
sessment and this was his reason for
going ahead in making the sewer con-
nection. He appeared to think that the
city could proceed and collect the as
sessment. This was not true. however,
according to City Solicitor Stuarts eX-
PLANTATION. The city was unprotected
and its proper course was to enforce
: the payment of the assessment, with
costs and penalty, or otherwise pre-