The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-03-22
RAW DEAL SHELINSKY
 ALLEGES
In Petition to Council lie Declares He is Harrased and Annoyed Without
 Reason.

Declares That the Houses He Woul6 i Move to Atlantic Street Will Be
 Made Equal to the Best There and | That the Actual Objection is te
 Eight More Families in the Neigh
 bOrhood-Says DeVer H. Warner
 and John E. Foster Backed Out of Contracts to Please Waldo C. Bryant.
 The Abraham shelinsky house nov | ing nnixup was not given an airing l before the Common Council last night l Shelinsslky sent a communication to the 1 council and it was referred to the l committee on Streets and Sidewalks, without reading.
 South End residents remonstrated to l the Director of Public Works against | the removal of two old houses. The director referred the matter back to l the council and revoked the permit he had given Shelinsky to move the buildings.
 In his communication ShelinsISy says: "The petition of Abraham She Hnsky for permission to move two and Warren streets to Atlantic will
 come before the Board of Aldermen for action. Your petitioner would like to state briefly the facts of this
 matter in order that your honorable
 board may understand the situation perfectly and accord justice to the pe- titioner.
 tton the .17th day of February, 1910, your petitioner purchased from the
 Warner Bros. Go. the houses in ques- tion. About the same time he pur- chased an unimproVed lot with a front age of 100 feet in Atlantic street, from John E. Foster to which he proposed to move the house he pur chased.
 Thereafter your petitioner petition ed the Common Council for a permit to move said houses from their then location to the location which he had secured. The matter was referred to the Director Of Public Works with power to act. On the following day the director after going over the pro- posed route and finding that the houses could be moved without dam age to trees or serious interference with public traffic. gave the desired
 ffYour correspondent then entered into contracts which still binding upon him for the disnaantling, removal and improvements in said buildings. These improvements were to conform to four family houses finished with all modern improvements and make very desirable rents for which it was expected to obtain from SIS to $20 per month.
 While this work was in progress the Director of Public Works notified MT. Shelinsky that he had revoked his permission and later sent a conmuni- cation to the Common Council The
 matter was r6f0rr0O, which gave 8 hearing to the parties in interest.
 When your petitioner purchased the lot in question of MT. Foster he paid him $500 and agreed to pay the balance within three months Thereupon MT. Foster issued a deed of the lot to your petitioner and deposited it in escrow with his attorney, with instructions to | deliver the deed to your petitioner at any time within 90 days when the bal ] ance of the purchase with interest was rad hi, writing was given your petitioner to this effect.
 ''On March g, 1910. your petitioner rendered MT. Fosters attorney the | balance of the purchase price with in terest and requested his deed. MT. Fosters attorney then informed him that he could not deliver the deed to him because he had received instruc- tions from MT. Foster to destroy it before your petitioner called for it. It later appeared that MT. Foster on the day previous had given to Waldo c. Bryant, who owns property in Park avenue near Atlantic street, 8. deed of the lot he had sold to your petitioner, and MT. Bryant's deed was immediate ly placed on record.
 Your petitioner then called upon MT. DeVer H. Warner and rendered him the balance of the amount stipu- lated for the purchase of the houses i and MT. Warner declined to accept it.
 ''He said MT. Bryant was very much opposed to having the houses located on the lot formerly owned by Mr. Foster, and that he would not accept any more money in payment for the houses. until MT. Bryant was satis- fled.
 'eAn effort is now being made by those opposed to the location of this house upon the so-called Foster lot through the Board of Aldermen to prevent your petitioner from getting the benefit of this investment and de- priving him of his legal rights.
 The question before your honorable board is whether one property owner ean dictate to another how he shall 1se his own property, and if the latter to assert his rights the aid of the Board of Aldermen will be sought to prevent him from doing so. The houses which your petitioner pro- poses to place on the so-ca1led Foster / ot will, when completed, be as good IS the best houses the street and superior to most of them. It is true l. hat they will be the means of bring ng eight additional families into that ocality and this seems to be the real objection.
 There is no valid reason either in aw or in equity why your petitioner mould be harassed as he has been on his matter. and he feels satisfied that he members of the Board of Alder nen upon learning the facts will pre- yent any further injustice being done o him.
 Respectfully submitted
 ABRAHAM SHELpNSKY.'' 0TTCU TuWInCnAXy rnn