The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-09
HOLDS UP PAVING
OBJECTIONS OF HULL STREET CET-
 HENS IN COURT.
They Seek to Enjoin City from Con- tracing for Use of BFiek--Judge Sayre Has it Under Consider-
 a4fOm.

The legality of a contract awarded lby the city council of Montgomery. providing for vitrified brick pavement on South Hull street, was argued by counsel yesterday before Judge Sayre in the equity division of the city court.
 The controversy over the style of pavement to be installed on South Hull street began last sumer. A num- Der of residents of this throughfare, 1t will be remembered. desired that asphalt pavement be laid, whereas others favored brick. On July 8. the city council awarded the contract to the Southern Paving and Construction Company for brick pavemet on this street and Mayor Teague, pursuant to this action, entered into written com l tract with the paving firm.
 A bill of complaint was filed In the equity court August 24 by several residents of South Hull street, who favored asphalt pavement. seeking to stop the execution./o of the contract. The complainants were c. W. Barnett, W. E. HayRood, George Laurie, Mrs. Jane M Fuller and Matte H. Stay. The bill was directed agaInst the city coun- ell of Montgomery and the Southern Paving and Construction Company,and prayed for a final decree declaring tho paving contract null and void and enjoining the city from paying out any money ar issuig any bonds Tor the paw ing of South Hull street under this contract. No temporary antuncticn was applied for but, pendfn Khe outcome of the proceedings. taN beginning of work on the street was delayed.
 The case was up for it's first hear ing yesterday before Judge Sayre. Arguments were made on both sides on the demurrers and a motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity
 Counsel for the complainants con tended that the contract Is in excess of the power and authority of the City Council and that the contract is void for two reasons. The first reason as- signed was that the advertisement for bids stipulated Call bids to be of ten years guarantee maintenance" while, 1t was alleged the contract actually made for brick paving was for two years maintenance. The second reason set forth by the compliments was that the City Council had no power con- tract for future repairs.
 Attorneys, representing the City Council and the construction company, contended that the advertisement for bids, calling for ten years guaranteed maintenalace, made no reference to the plans and specifications on file in the city engineers office, which provided for a two years guaranteed mainten- ance. In answer to the second reason assigned by the compliments, the de- fense insisted that the city of Mont gomery did have the power to contract for future repairs in the manner set forth In the contract.
 Judge Sayre took the matter under advisement and it is expected he will render a decision at an early day so that the case may reach the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. Whatever may be the result of Judge Sayre.s decision, the case will doubtless pc appealed as the questions involved are generally regarded as being very im- portant.
 In the meantime, the execution of the contract will be suspended.
 Judge Sayre heard no other eases yesterday in the equity court