The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-10-18
Or. TarbeII Asks Pay From June
| 10 Sept. |, S666.67 In ALL
WILL Be FURTHER HEARINGS
Committee on Claims 10 Consider The Mat.
fer fuTihsr-0thcr Gains Brought
Eetore tia Commltaes.

a number OF claims being on hand TO
be considered.
Attorney George A. Littleield presented
the claim OF DR.. Horace s. Tarbell. for
merly superintendent OF schools The
claim Is for salary from June / to Sept !.
1902, amounting TO s66667.
Mr.. Littleheld began with the first ap
pointment OF DR.. Tarbell in 1884 and re-
viewed his several elections up TO the
last. He claimed that the beginning OF
each year OF service was coincident with
the beginning OF each school year in Sep
tember and that he received his salary in
y monthly installments Mr.. Littlefield
produced a letter from Merrick Lyon OF
the school committee OF that time. in
forming Mr.. Tarbell on June 2s. 1884.
that he had been elected TO succeed Dan
lei Leach; that the school year COM
menced on the 1st OF September and that
the committee wished Mr.. Tarbell TO en-
ter upon his duties at that time.
Daniel Leach was paid the salary TO
Sept l in that year. The records of sue
ceeding years showed appointment FOR
the ensuing year or I'm some instance
for "the next school year. In June, 1899,
he received an election for three years.
Mr. Littefeld contended that this was
for the three years beginning with the
next school year. that Mr.. Tarbell was
then serving under the single year ap-
pointment made In the perceding year.
City Solicitor Colwell asked Mr.. Little
field why DIR. Tarbell had not been able
to collect the salary II Mr.. Tarbell was
elected for three years beginning In June
the claim was not good
Mr.. Littefeld believed that Mr.. Tar
bell could not be elected for the term of
three years beginning in June. 1899 for he
was then occupying the office for period
which would not terminate until Septem-
ber. He Had been selected In every year
in June. his term OF office under each
successive' appointment to begin In Sep
tember
An argument was then carried on be-
tween the two gentlemen on the merits
OF the case, Mr.. Colwell asking IL II were
not a fact that in 1896 when the reorgan-
iZation was made the periods OF contracts
were changed Mr.. Littlefed claimed
that the by laws nor rules mentioned the
change In any way.
RECORDS READ.
Mr.. Littleield read the records OF the
meeting Of April 4, when Mr. Small was
elected which he claimed made no men
tion of when Mr.. Small should begin his
duties. The chairman, he declared. in an
nouncing the result, added the words be
ginning July e." which Mr. Littefeld
claimed there was no warrant in doing.
Dr. Tarbell was not discharged from
the office Mr.. Littlefeld claimed. and
therefore Mr. Small could not be elected
To an office already occupied.
Mr.. Colwell wanted TO know why the
claim had been refused and Mr.. Little
field said there were no legal grounds for
1t. He had. he said, sent a notice TO
the chairman OF the school committee
stating Mr.. Tarbelis readiness 10 perform
the duties OF his office until the expiration
OF his term and that ne should expect TO
be paid for the full term. To this re-
ply was received stating that the matter
would be submitted 10 the executive COM
mittee Of the school committee. mot to
the school committee" said Mr.. Little
field but TO the executive committee"
Continuing Mr.. Littleheld said the only
thing that could be construed as a dis
missal OF DR.. Tarbell was n notice from
the executive committee OF the school
committee requesting Or. Tarbell to re-
move his personal effects from the super
intendent's office. This was not a dis
charge for the executive committee had
no authority to discharge the superin-
tendent.
Mr. Cowell said the matter would re-
quire considerable further investigation
and he would consult with the commit
tee, and would call upon Mr. Littlefieh
II necessary.
OTHER CLAIMS MADE
The claim OF McAuiffe & Co continued
from the last meeting. was the first case
considered. James ellison testified that
and said that he had had no conversa-
tion with any member OF the city gov
ernment except Supt. Evans and that
was about a job in the public buildings
department.
The McAuliffe e. Co. claimed n consid-
erable sum as compensation for furnish
ing a man 10 take charge OF the boilers
I'm the new Central Fire station. The COM
pany wanted $3.50 a day and extra for
Sundays and holidays MIR Evans said
he promised but s1.75 per day.
Annie McNearney claimed damages for
alleged injuries received by falling on the
sidewalk I'm front OF 81 Westminster
street. defect existing at that place. His
right knee and left side were considera-
| bly, injured.
Dr sullivan. who attended her, testified
| 10 her condition.
Gen. Charles A. Wilson asked for a re-
mission OF taxes assessed against him.
| claiming 20 have been a resident OF War
wick for two years.
| Dr A. s Allen was negligent in not
| making a return before the board. and
when he asked for remission OF
tax assessed on drug store
| which ne formerly owned he was inform
ed OF this fact and withdrew his claim.
An aged woman. Mrs. Mary Manning.
| complained 20 the committee that she
| was assessed on property that she had
| sold In May. last, but as she had not
| made the necessary return, the committee
| could give her no relief.
! Mrs MAY J. Fox found herself In n
| similar predicament. She claimed she had
no personal property and never had any
| Charles NJ Standish. Robert n. Bannis-
| ter and Henry r. Hicks. executors OF the
estate of Annie A Carpenter, were in the
| same nx Walter n. Rounds complained
! that the $500 for which he was taxed had
| been lost I'm business. He, too. failed TO
1 make returns.
| The claim of Mrs. Samuel whlttemore.
| made through her son. William @ Whit
| temore. was considered and referred 10
| tho city solicitor. Mrs. Whittemore. slip
| ned on n banana peel on the sidewalk on
| West River street iniuring n leg that
| for three months she has been confined
10 her house. and II stu seriously dis
| abled. City Solcitar Colwell said the city
| Is required 90 keep the streets free from
| obstructions and defects. but he did not
| believe the city could be held responsible
! for damages under such circumstances