Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1908-01-01
sssts 4. ~
Judge OImsted Holds Sixteenth
Street Paving is Up to
Requirements.
INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWED
Vouchers Not According to Statute is
Reason-Assessment Roll
Ordered Revised.

Judge X. w. OimSted, IN the county
court, yesterday gave his decision on
| the Sixteenth street paving case, hold
ing the work to have been done sub
stantially in conformity with the ordi-
nance, and approving the certificate to
| this effect filed in court by the board
lof local improvements. The case is
one of unusual importance and inter-
| est, IS it involves peculiar questions
under The public Improvement laws.
The Orgy ruling against the city is on
| the matter of interest.
Judges Decision.
Below is given the full ruling of the
court:
1.-The court has had this case under
consideration during the progress of
| the trial. since Monday a week ago, a
week from yesterday, with the excep-
ton of Christmas, and has endeayored
to digest the case as best he could dur
ing the progress of the trial.
| THE court finds itself working under
the special assessment law. which is
different under the ordinary law that
courts are called upon to administer.
The hearing is upon the final certifi-
cate whether or not the work has
been performed in substantial compli-
ance with the ordinance. The court
discovers upon this hearing that the
statement of costs of the improvement
is incorrect. and therefore the court
feels impelled to decide in addition to
the question of whether or not the
work has been completed in substan-
tai compliance with the ordinance.
Refuses interest.
"On this additional question of the
cost of the improvement and the costs
of the case, the court finds that the
total cost of the work to the private
property owners is $5,565.55; that the
court costs are S239.50. The court re-
fuses TO allow the item of $62.55 for in
terest, for the reason of not comply
/ ing with the statute in regard to
vouchers. The court finds that 2 per
cent of the amount of the actual cost
to the private property owners, name
lly, per cent of $5,56555, amounts to
$l11.S1, and is a reasonable and proper
charge for the collection of this assess
ment The court finds the actual cost
of the Improvement against the city to
have been Sl.041.65. The court finds
that there is an excess of S260.72 in
the amount assessed above the cost of
the improvement. | think that dis
, poses of the question of costs
4 Before | pass ON the other phase of
!, the question, about whether or not this
work has been completed in substan
tial conformity to the ordinance, wish
to say that law has been cited to the
variance between the recommendation
of the board of local improvements and
the ordinance; the court finds there is
a variance between the estimated cos
of the Improvement, submitted by the
! engineer, and the ordinance, but NJ
) the court, that there may not be (;
( variance between the estimated cos
} by the engineer and the ordinance; il
: fact, the very nature of an estimat,
iprecludeS the idea that an ordinanc,
could be passed squarely on that cost
) assumed that it shall vary, but shall
( not exceed a certain point.
Regarding Drains.
THE court finds that the provision
( Of the ordinance regarding the layin:
4 of drains have been complied with.
( is true that additional drains were lai
2 that did not harm the improvement il
< any way, but that the additional i'm
z provement is assessed to the city, an
3 in the opinion of the court can nc
I harm the private property owner.
. Regarding the question of whethe
< or not the work has been completed i
9 substantial compliance with the ordiI
d ance. the court has the greatest diff
. Guilty. IL seems that the preponde
y ance of evidence discloses that thi
work has not been done i'll absolut
conformity to the ordinance. 1t seem
that there has been an insufficient SUI
4 ply of cement put in the concrete.
seems from what evidence there is b.
fore the court that the asphaltum
not Strictly and absolutely what j
should have been, although only
small part of 1t was tested and th
mix on this day might have been yer
different, and the court condemns sue
& practice as being dishonest and thin
to be absolutely condemned by eli
and property owners alike, and it a
pears to the court that it is the duty
the city to protect the private propert
owners and see by a proper inspectic
that requirements are complied wi
strictly.
Defects shown.
ut seems thai there is a depresslt
from the driveway going into the
of MIR. Dade. and / recall it, and Il