The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1904-03-11
Charges That the Contract Was
Not Carried 0ut---CaIl for
Bids Was Not an ''0pen
Door Through Which
Other Concerns Could
Have Entered.
From Mondays Daily.

From Mondays Daily.
The attorneys for the city today filed
with Court Commissioner Eberhart the
answer in the suit of the Barber Asphalt
Paving company against the :. city to
recover about $4,000 for the paving,
curbing, gathering and boulevarding of
Broad street. The answer is the result
of much painstaking labor on the part OF
City Attorney Daley, c. y. Andrews and
A E. Clark. Mr.. Clark had the actual
work of drawing the answer, and this,
together with the exhibits, makes about
lS5 pages of typewriting.
The following is the complete text of
the answer, it being of such general in
terest that The Free Press gives it in
full to its readers:
For its answer to the, complaint of the
plaintiff in the action above-entitleq de-
PENDANT.
l. Denies each and every allegation,
matter and thing in said complaint con-
tanned not hereinafter admitted, or alleg-
ed and set forth as affirmative defensive
matter.
2. Defendant admits that it is a
municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the pro-
visions of Chapter AZ, of the Special
Laws of Minnesota for the year 1891, as
alleged in the complaint, which Act is
entitled as therein alleged, and in this
connection defendant alleges that it still
exists and its rights, powers, and func-
lions are defined and controlled by the
provisions of said Act, except as the
same are controlled, altered or modified
by the general laws of Minnesota apple
able to defendant.
3. Further answering defendant al
leges, that on the 2lst day of February,
A d. 1902, the common council of the de-
PENDANT, at a regular meeting thereof,
adopted a motion to the effect that pub
lie necessity required that Broad street
in defendant city, be paved with asphalt
UNI thirty feet in width, and that said
street be otherwise improved by curbing,
gathering and boulevarding, and that the
same be referred to- the board of public
works of defendant pursuant to order
No. ], of the charter of said defendant
passed, and said matter referred as above
alleged, no petition or request of any
kind signed or made by any of the prop
erty owners along the portion OF Broad
street embraced in said notion or by
any persons owning property abutting
upon said contemplated improvement, or
by any person or persons whatsoever,
had been presented to or filed with said
VIII off
board or body of said defendant, asking
that said street be improved in the man
ner provided for in said motion, or in
any manner whatsoever. That no petit
ton or application as aforesaid was ever
made, presented to, or filed with said
common council or any other municipal
board OF official That at the time of
the passage of said motion, and at all
times thereafter, there existed no neces-
sity or demand for the improvement of
said street in the manner contemplated,
or in any manner, That prior to the
passage of said motion there was pre-.
sented to and filed with the common
council aforesaid a petition and remon-
STRANGE against the making or ordering
of said Improvement, signed by upwards
of ninety per cent of the property own
ers upon said street along such cOntem-
plated improvement, a copy of which re-
monstrance is hereto annexed and mark
ed exhibit one and made a part hereof
as fully as if copied herein at length, and
then and at all times thereafter the ord
ering, contracting for and making of said
improvement, and all steps and proceed |
ings in relation thereto, were remonstrat |
ed against and opposed by said property |
owners. That Notwithstanding all the |!
foregoing, said common council without |
any reason, necessity, or demand there
ror, arbitrarily and without justification
in law or in fact, did order the making |
of said improvement as hereafter alleged.
That prior to, at the time of, and at all
times after the passage of said motion
by the common council, plaintiff had
knowledge and was fully advised of and
familiar with the provisions of the
charter of defendant, and all the pro
visions thereof, and with the general pro-
visions of law applicable to defendant
and with all the facts hereinbefore al
legged.
f. That thereafter and on March It'll,
1902, the board of public works to whom
was referred the matter of such improve
ment by the motion passed by the COM
inOh do
made to the said common council the
following report, to-wit:
Office of the Board of Public Works,
City of Mankato, March 7th, 1902.-To
the Common Council of the City of Man
kato: The board of public works have
had under consideration the resolution or
order of the common council, approved
March 2lst, 1902, relative to the paving
with asphaltum, thirty feet in width, and
curbing ,guttering and boulevarding Broad
street from Lincoln street to Vine street, II
and having investigated the proposed i'm ]
provement, respectfully report that said (
improvement is proper and advisable. | l
That the estimated expense thereof is i
$53 3S4.00; that real estate to be asses s
sed therefor can be found benefited to
the extent of all the damages, costs and 6
expenses necessary to be incurred there {
by. : We hereby send a plan or profile, I
and specifications of said improvement. I
and an order for your adoption, if you c
desire us to make the improvement. The S
board would further recommend and adj |
wise that providing. this improvement |
shall be made that the boulevards on \
both sides for the whole length of the a
shall be placed in the e
charge and care of the park commission a
ers, who shall at all times keep the same P
properly moved, and in clean and neat il
condition. That said park commissions n