The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-12-27
Advertiser Bureau.


 The decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama, recently rendered in the case of the City of Mobile vs. the Mo- bile Light and Railroad Company. Is of much more importance to the public than would have been supposed from the meager report which was published by a local paper, and which consisted of the mere mention of the fact that the decision of the Chancellor had been affirmed. It has always been insisted by the Mobile Light and Railroad Company that its liability to contribute to the expense of paving the streets or the city of Mobile was limited by the terms of the ordinance under which 1t obtained its franchise and from the terms of the charter of the city of Mobile to the cost of paving between its tracks and eighteen inches on each side thereof, and that the liability for this pavement was limited to the act ual cost of this specific pavement. The Board of Public Works, upon the advice of the city attorney. on the contrary, insisted that the terms paw ing" included not only the pavement itself. but proportionate contribution to the cost of retaining curbing and the surface drainage. and upon this theory the Board of Public Works have made up their estimated charging the railway company with a share of the whole work proportioned according to the number of square feet of pavement. The Chancellor held. however. that the liability of the Mobile Light and Railroad Company was limited as in- sisted by it. and that the company was not liable for any part of the cost of drainage and retaining curbing, and the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court is to uphold the decision of the Chancellor.
 In the meantime, the Board of Pub lie Works have fixed the estimates of the abutting property owners upon the theory that the railway company would have to contribute d large share of the costs of retaining curbing and the surface drainage, and this insist | ence having failed, the necessary re- suit seems to be that the city must as result of the error. bear the loss of many thousands of dollars which | ought to have been included in the as- the abutting owners. and which was | erroneously attempted to be placed up- | on the railway company.
 The suit referred to above was brought by the city of Mobile against f the Mobile Light and Railroad Com pany to compel the payment of S2- 962.38, with interest for street paving etc. in what is known as District No. 1 I. and was filed in December, 1903, in | the Chancery Court of Mobile. On January 16, 1904, the Mobile Light and i Railroad Company filed demurrers to the bill and on April 26, following l Chancellor Smith, in term. granted a decree sustaining the demurrers. From | this decree an appeal was taken to the l Supreme Court of Alabama and a de- | cree affirming the ruling of the lower
 
 | last month.
 This Is considered a very important | case for the reason that the question l Is raised whether the Mobile Light and | Railroad Company will have to pay for retaining curbing. underground storm sewers and surface drainage. From the decisions of the two courts 1t would appear that the street railroad company will have only to pay for street paving between its tracks and for eighteen inches on either side An Attempted Burglary.
 | Early this morning news was receiv-
 ed at the sheriffs office that an at
 tempted rape or burglary had been at
 tempted in the home of a white man l named Morris in the Barker cotton
 mills colony. Deputies Patch and Mo
 Carron went to the place and learned | that sister-in-law of Morris was
 awakened about 1 o'clock this morning | by some one pressing his hands upon 1 her breast. She saw a white man and | screamed. The man ran off. He had l effected entrance through a window
 The deputies. with a poor description
 searched and arrested young white
 man. He was taken before the young
 woman and she failed to identify him
 as the right person. He was released The deputies are still Investigating. | Funeral of Child.
 The remains of Little Joe Gonzales,