Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1912-12-21
CITY STREET PAVING
IN COURT NEXT
PROPERTY OWNERS QUESTION
RIGHT OF CITY COUNCIL TO TAN
THEM AND DECLARE THE ORDI
NANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
HOMSETEAD LAW CITED-WILL
NOT SUBMIT CASE TO COUNCIL
LATTER TO PROCEED TO GET
PAVING NOTES SIGNED.

| Giving three reasons for action OF
| thirty-four property owners in the paw
| ing districts protesting against assess
nents for improvements in front of their
| rroperty. but stating that he withheld
several other bases for the protest be
ae to them, Attorney Harvey Davenport
at the hearing before the city council last
night caused sudden cessation of pro
ceedngs. The meeting adjourned before
it had hardly started. and it is probable
that when next heard Of. the city's paw.
ing matters will be in the courts.
Mr.. Davenport first questioned the au-
thority of the council to pass on the
rights of the propery owners, which tho
mayor admitted. He said in the second
place, that the ordinance upon which the
council based its paving procedure is un.
constitutional. The third obstacle that he
cited was the homestead law.
Mr.. Davenport gave the council little
to do, and after talking to it minute at
the most, it was decided that all that
could be done was to adjourn, which was
promptly done Judge w. f. Hawkins
representing the paving company. asked
Mr.. Davenport, who at first did not give
an inkling as to the nature of the pro
tests. if he would state any reasons Mr.
Davenport then outlined the reasons
with the exception Of some of the correct
of which hn nncnrt a an1
which he therefore heSitated to give
Representatives Of the paving company
attended the hearing with the expectation
that they would learn the nature of tho
protests which the property owners in
tended to enter. but were forved to leave
with little light on the subject. They
are "up in the air. as to the situation.
-a1rtt affrom~ what can be learned it is
doubtful if any more paving will be done
until the paving company find where
they stand. They have not yet accepted
the paving certificates which the abut-
ting property owners are to give for paw
ing already done.
From Mr.. DavenpOrts attitude it was
gathered that the property owners would
carry their protests to the courts at the
proper time. and would not bring up their
cases before the council for disposal by
that body SO far as the council is con
cerned. the hearing is entirely closed and
| it will probably next proceed to obtain
the signatures of the property owners to
the paving certificates, or notes, in pay
ment for the improvements made.
Whether or not the council can fOrcd
the objecting property owners to pay fol
the improvements made is matter which
from all indications. will be fought out
in the courts
The property owners who have listed
as protesting on the date set for the
hearing. December 1t. follow: III. A. and
~. A. Maltby. Jose Celaya, w. F. Den
nett. Mary Waltgenbach, Mrs. NJ. f. Vi
vier. A. +. Barreda, +. Lopez, estate Of
F. Thielen, estate of +. Yturria. estate OF
s. Celaya. Mrs A. G. Truwit Mrs A
LOrber Mrs. f. c. FOrto Mrs. c. Vuitton.
net NJ. BesteirO, Mrs. l.. f. Wreford. A
Bollack. Mrs. :. Ashheim. First Nation
al Bank. John Young, f. F. COmbe, c
r. Barreda. John B. McAllen and son
f. l.. Hicks, Mrs. Jas. A. Browne. Albert
A. Browne, estate of Mrs. Sauder, Bas
lilo Garcia. Mrs Julia 2. de Besteiro
Valentin Gavito. ]. BeSteriO & Bro. f. G.
Fernandez and j. l.. George
There will also be other property own
ers in the list it is expected The list
given entered on the day set for hearing
December a. and after their names were
recorded by the council the hearing was
closed to all other property owners. How
ever. at the postponed hearing Wednes
day afternoon additional names were sub
mitted by the attorneys. but were stricken
! from the list by the council because they
were not in the list that appeared OH tho
18th. the legal day for protests.