The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1907-03-07
Annual Town Report.

The annual report of The municipal
Ulcers of the town OF Skowhegan was
issued on Monday from the REPORTER
job department. Ii is pamphlet Of 81
pages and gives detailed Information OF
the sources of income from which furds
Of the town to the extent of Sl05 420
have been raised and the purposes for
which the same have been expeL ded.
1t also contains the reports OF the Park
Commission, the Skowhegan Publ C
l. brary and various trust funds in which
the cit zens of Skowhtg gan have an intel
est. Copies of this report may be OH
tanned Oh application at the Office of The
selectmen, Ordway block, and every
voter should call for Que and give it
careful study before the annual meeting
of Monday next. The seeetmen will
mail copies to such citizens as are unable
TO call for them, II r, quested to do so
The expenses of four law suits have
been met during the past year. This
is more than the usual amount OF lilga-
ton but in each case 1t was de, m. un-
avoidable One of these suits had been
brought by the 3kow negan Water Com
pany sgainst the Skowhegan Village
Corporation by reason Of a vote passed
under which the assessors were directed
to withhold the rental for the use OF the
fire hydrants. The Corporation WAS
abolished at the annual town meeting,
one year since, and the town became he
defendant in this suit. Walton Il Wal
ton had been retained by the Corpora.
ton and they were continued In charge
by the town ut the suggestion q lhr
town agent, E. G. Butler. f q. The
town filed an offer OF default for 500 81
and the final verdict, including s2i4.09
paid for legal services was but $500 3S
Judgment was rendered against ihr
town in the Steward case, brought By
Steward Brothers for damages sustained
by them on account of raising The gradt
Of Island avenue, In the sum Of sl273
this including an attorneys fee Of ST.
The bridge street case, submitted IN thc
Law Court on an agreed statement Of
facts, resulted 10 decision FOR the fowr.
This suit was brought by Waiter s.
Gushing, who claimed he title 10 n,
land over which Bridge street had teeu
located. The suit WAS important from
the fact that the towns title 10 Turner
avenue WAS very much the same MS It's
title to Bridge street and, had il beeu
defeated Ia Its contention AS 10 the latter
street. the former owners OF he Turner
avenue location could have maintained +
successful suit for the value Of The lard.
The total cost in the Bridge street case
was M attorneys Zee OF $40.
The fourth suit In which the town
WAS party was the Equity case inyoIv-
ing he right Of the town to build Mu-
nicpal building ON the Heselton House
lot. The town agent deemed II wise IL
employ additional COUNSEL in his case
and Forrest Goodwin, Esq, was Realm
ed. His fee and expenses amounted 10
sl54 % aud further expense OF $40 WAS
connected with the case, making total
Of SlG4.25. A part Of the verdict was an
execution in favor OF the town, running
against The petitioners, which could b.
eufol ced should the voters 50 direct. Il
this connection it may be mention, d
that the petitioners consider that the,
really performed service 10 The tow
10 Investigating the seion and that they
/ OF only should be relieved Of any liabil-
ity under this ext culion but should be
reimbursed for their expenses in Ia,
matter. They have secured the inser-
ton OF Article 40 in the town warrae,
aud under 1t will AJAX the town to VOTE
them the amount Of their expenses II
the case amounting TO about eighty
dollars.
The total expense to the town ia con
ntction with the four cases enumerated
is 81 30 60