The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-01-01
.RAGLAND SEEKING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Notice Served on Beck That APP
plication Will be Made III
Chanccry Court OH Friday,
CITY ATTORNEY NOT IN CASE
Board Of Safety Would Have
Granted Permit Except for
Property Ownership Issue.

4 3 ~ 4 j.
Notice was served yesterday on
Building Inspector Beck that counsel
for John H. Raglnnd would apply to
Judge Grinnan. in tho Chnncery Court.
on Friday morning at 10 o'clock for
writ of mandamus compelling him
to Issue a permit for the erection Of
six stores on North Fifth Street the
Board OF Public Safety toatlie contrary
Notwithstanding.
The litigation will be oil the more
interesting in view of the general be-
lief that the City Attorney will not
represent n municipal officer. According,
to the City Attorneys opinion to the
board. there Is no ordinance to prohibit
the erection OF mercantile establish
ments in the residential districts, and
had his advice been followed the COM
plant OF adjoining property-owners
would have been unavuiling. Mr.. Beck
said yesterday that he would be rep
resented by counsel, but he agrees that
Mr.. Pollard would be in a rather Pc
cuiar position should the regular
legal department of the city be called
on to oppose the mandamus in the
Chancery Court, when 1t has rendered
decision favorable to the plaintiff.
Mr.. Ragland Is represented by Nelson
6; Nelson.
Board Ready to Grnnt 1t.
More important than the legal pro-
ceedings Is the fact brought out yes
terday that the Board of Public Safety
was prepared on Monday to reverse the
decision of Inspector Beck and allow
the permit to be ISSUED with the pro-
vision that the fire walls be made
thirteen inches thick. Two points de-
veloped at the hearing were seized
upon by the board, however. In reject
| ing finally the application. The mem
| bers concluded that the arrangement
whereby six stores were to be heated
| by one furnace was dangerous. and the
| appeal proper was thrown out sum-
marily when 1t was stated that Mr..
Ragland was not the fee simple owner
of the property in question.
! Mr.. Ragland's lawyers declare that
| the attitude of the board in this lat
ter respect was ridiculous and was
so regarded by lawyers generally who
discussed the matter yesterday. They
hold that the courts will not accep,
any such ruling.
Though the application for pcrmi,
has been turned down on two occa.
sions, 1t Is pointed out that Mr.. Beck
| was not sustained in either case, fol-
the reason that the board In the frs,
instance rejected the appeal on the
ground that an ordinance, long in ex-
| istence, had not been complied with
ME-. u. "A. COnnelly, agent Tor MT. tRag-
land, declared that it had never beer
called to his attention by the Inspec.
tor. In the second case. the apppellan-
lost for reasons already stated. name.
ly. on the question of fee simple
ownership brought up after Mr.. Becl
had rendered his decision. Therefore
1t is plain that there has been no &C
i tual review Of the Inspectors ruling
by which the permit was refused, be
cause of the protest OF citizens re
siding in the immediate neighborhood
May Attack Beck.
! Whether or not Mr.. Ragland vii
insist upon holding Inspector Beck re
sponsible at law for delaying his build
ing plans is rather indefinite propo
sition In the event, however, that tn
i mandamus is issued, the Inspecto
would unquestionably be required t
i pay the costs, and he could hardly ex
pect Council to reimburse him. mas
much as he had failed to- be governe
by the advice of City Attorney Pol
4 lard Mr.. Beck denied last night tina
the Grace Street property owners ha
agreed to indemnify him for persona
loss at court.