Waterbury Democrat., 1902-05-01
WALKERS LOSE.
Board of Aldermen Not Sus-
 tained by Court.
INJUNCTION MADE PERMANENT.

Alderman Walker, the Court HoIdss
 Had no right to Vote to pay Himself
 Damage Decision Has Been
 Awaited With Interest and Sustains Mayor Kilduf in His Veto of This Celebrated Case.
 The board of aldermen loses in the injunction suit restraining the city from paying to Alderman Robert w. Walker and his wife Alice the sum ot $S9S for alleged damages to their prop-
 erty; that is the injunction is made permanent and the Walkers shal! Dot be paid the sum voted them by the board or aldermen. Surface water flowed into the Walkers cellar or Bans
 street, ,damag ging they claimed, a con- siderable lot of their property. Mr l Walker claimed damage from the city and the board of aldermen voted to | pay $S9S and Mayor kilduff vetoed the vote. Attorney Root representing the
 Hellmann Brewing company, from
 whose premises the surface water in
 question flowed, opposed the payment of the claim on the grounds that i1
 might subsequently, be compelled to
 pay back the sum to the city. Attor-
 ney Root set up that Alderman Walker had no legal right to vote upon that l question ard as he did vote the vote was wrong and illegal and therefore the sum voted should not be paid to the Walkers. Colonel Burpeee, repre- senting the Walkers, maintained other-
 wise. Following is the memorandum of the court:
 Upon the trial of the case the parties
 were at issue on para graphs 10, II, F and 13 of the complaint, the remaining
 paragraphs being admitted by failure
 of defendant to file an answer. 1t
 was admitted by the defendant that
 the records of the city would show
 that allegation of the fact contained in paragraph 10 and II was also admitted.
 It was claimed by the defendant and
 conceded by the plaintiff that para
 graphs F and 13 really stated only
 conclusions of law. In substance,
 then, all the allegations of the facts were, when the case came up for trial. ! admitted, and the parties were heard as to judgment to be rendered.
 The primary question is whether the
 vote of October 14th was valid. It ap- pears from the complaint, and is ad-
 mitted to be true, that the claim be-
 longed to Alice c. Walker, wife of Robert w. Walker; that the claim was
 presented to the city by Robert w. l Walker, manager for Mrs Alice c. . Walker" that Robert w. Walker was 3 a member of the board of aldermen: t that the vote by which twas attempted 3 to pass said claim over the mayor $ : veto was voted for by ten members of f 1 Ia hoard nf a a1dapD1Qn nf
 was the said Robert w. Walker, and : that the other five members of the 7 board of aldermen voted against said claim over the mayors veto.
 By the charter of the city, section IS, : no vote, resolution, order, bylaw or ordinance shall become operative lln- less passed over the mayors veto by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the . members present and absent If Rob- f ert w. Walker was qualified to vote
 upon the question, then the vote of o October IA was valid. If he was not , entitled to vote <,hen only nine mem- ! bers of the board, being less than two- a thirds of the entire membership of the , board. voted for it and it did not pass. [ There can be little question but
 that Robert w Walker was disquali-
 fled from voting in reference to this 7 claim. As the husband of Mrs Walker, Il and as her manager. and as presenting :, her claim against the city. lie is cer- :. tainly interested in it's passage to such an extent that he does not stand in ' a position to judge fairly and impartis ], ally between his wife and the city. T Ft Wayne vs l.. $. X Mo So k. R. ; Go. IS, l.. k. A., 367 Ind and note. U Daily vs Ga Southern R. R. Co., so
 Ga 793. F Am St Rep 2S6 and note t I must therefore hold that the vote Ii of October 14th, 1901, was invalid in e that it did not receive the number of n qualified votes required to pass the s Walker claim over the mayors veto, as d required by the said charter
 Y The defendant claims that the city e ought not to be enjoined perpetually 7 against paying the claim, even if it s should be found that the vote of Oc-
 tober 14th, 1901. as illegal. The court e does not. in this decision, pass upon the V validity or inys.lidity of the original e claim. but only on the validity of the l-1 vote of October 14th, 1902. That vote h being invalid the vote of August 10th, d 1901, stands annulled by reason of the 1t veto.
 q Judgment is rendered for the plain l, tiff, declaring said vote of the board Of l. aldermen of October 14th, 1901. void [; and of no effect and an injunction is J. granted perpetually restraining the de- e fendant the city of Waterbury. from e paying said sum of $S9S.00 to said $, Robert w. Walker and Alice c. Walker l. under said votes of August 10, 1901 ]. and October IA, 1901 and restraining 7. said Robert w. Walker and Alice c 1. Walker from collecting said sum under r. said votes of August 19 1901, and
 October IA. 1901, and restraining said ; Kilduff, mayor, Russell, comptrollel ;i and Ryan city clerk, from drawing 70 signing and issuing an order of sait e 't city in favor of and to said Robert w 'A Walker and Alice c. Walker to pay tn, said claim of $S9S.00 under said vote, .e of August 19 and October H, 1901 w Decree to be prepared accordingly. ts = GAGER, Judge.