The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-06-08
CITY LOST LIT TIE
BY DAMAGE SUITS
Many Claim Injury, but Few Win
Final Verdicts in the
Courts.

The annual report of the City At.
totney. which came from the printer
yesterday. shows that during the past
year judgments obtained against the
city In all courts aggregated only
s4162, less than ! per cent. oil the out
lay made during the year for street
and sewer Improvement Most of the
suits have been caused by reason OF
damage to abutting property through
changes in grades of streets, or per-
Bonal injuries TO citizens through fail
ure of workmen or contractors prop
erly to barrlcade and light obstruc-
tons
Thirty-nine suits against the city
were Instituted during the year. On
January there were pending in all
courts seventy suits and appeals
in which the city was a party. Forty
eight cases were disposed of during
the year the city winning nine ap-
peais and seventeen suits, and losing
seven appeals and eighteen suits.
Mr.. Pollard discusses at some length
the case of City of Richmond against
Wood, which was in the nature OF a
test case. and in which the city lost,
Wood and a nllnber of associates cs-
tablished their right to obtain dam
ages from the city for the flooding of
cellars from an old defective or In
adequate sewer
Appeal to Supreme Court.
Mr.. Pollard also discusses in some
detail the appea! to the supreme Court
for the reversal of an old decision
regarding the liability of the city for
damages in the case of accidents from
encroachments in the streets.
The lower courts found for the city,
but on appeal the supreme Court. with
Judge Buchanan dissenting. decided
that the former decision laid down in
the case of Barksdale against Mayo
was still binding. Mr.. Pollard says:
This action left the city of Richmond
in the attitude OF being Obliged TO in
stitute an action of ejectment or a
chancery suit In every case where it
is sought to compel the removal Of OBJ
structfons from the streets. Inasmuch
as hundreds OF such distractions eN-
list. the situation becomes etnbarrass-
ing in the extreme. After careful con-
,, sideration 1 have determined 70 appeal
to the next session of the General
Assembly to amend the statute so AZ
| expressly to give Jurisdiction to tho
police justices of the cities OF the
| Comm onwealth"
Question still Pending.
The Eubank case. involving the con-
stitutionality of the building line law.
Is reported SAlil pSIih'uS ''SAoi' ss'S
| Supreme Court In the case Of the
| city of Richmond against Mason. de
| cded by the Supreme Court last June.
the question arose as TO the liability
| Of the city for damages growing out
of accidents happening upon streets
! In the annexed territory before the
city could collect funds for the pur-
| pose of repairing such streets. II was
in effect held that until the city could
| under Its charter raise the money
for the improvements in the new sec
ton. it could not be held liable for
=. the defective condition OF the streets.
The long drawn out litigation be-
tween the city and the Western Union
| Telegraph Company, involving the
| right of the city to compel the COM
| pany 10 place its wires in certain por-
tons of the city under ground. is re-
ported as being now awaiting final
decision from the United States SUI
preme Court. having been won by the
city In the United States Circuit Court
| of AnnnalS u