Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1912-03-07
burlington. MarCh u. l?l@
Hon. NJ c. Leary,

Hon. NJ. c. Leary,
| city Attorney,
Burlington, Vt
| Dear Brother Leary:
| Pursuant to our conversation this
morning. l write YOU with respect to
the case Of the Burlington Light and
Power company and the Burlington
Gas company VS.. City Of Burlin gton
After a hearing in this case of sew
eral days and after conference with
our experts. ! am convinced that we
will not be able to determine whe-
her the commercial lighting business
| conducted by the city Is done at loss
or not and this because it is impos
sible to determine from the books
kept by the city how much it costs to
manufacture the commercial light and
how much it costs to manufacture
light for municipal purposes. That Is
the current used for municipal pur-
poses and the current used for com
mercial purposes are not metered sep
arately and the cost of the two cannot
be separated in the accounts as kept
by the city.
In our bill OF complaint we have
raised the question as to whether the
city has a right In case Of any break.
down or interruption in the service or
any part of the service to cut off the
street lights and continue the COM
mercial lighting. We have also COM
planned because the city does not on
force the law providing that unpaid
bills due for commercial lighting shall
be lien upon the real estate where
used; but as the question as to whe-
ther the city has a right to do com
mercial business at loss Is the more
important and as we find that we are
unable to determine this question be.
cause of reasons above stated, we are
inclined to feel that II is not advis-
able to pursue this litigation further
under the circumstances, and we are
therefore willing to discontinue our
case without costs to the city. pro-
vided the city so desires and on Its
part will make no claims or damages
by reason of said suit.
Very sincerely yours.
c. H. DARLING.
Atty. for the orators
The communication from Mr.. Darling
was accompanied ny the following rec
concentration from City Attorney I%ary:
To the Honorable Board Of Aldermen,
Gcntlemen:-I herewith submit proposal
of settlement of the chancery case of
the burlington Light IL Power company
and the Burlington Gas Light company
against the city of Burlington. for your
consideration.
have considered this proposal and
considered the matter with II. +. Brown,
the counsel assigned in the trial Of this
case. and We are both OF the opinion
that II Is advisable for the city to ac-
cept the terms of settlement as set forth
In the communication herewith enclosed.
This litigation has been very expensive
TO the city and further large sums of
money would be required to carry it on
to final judgment In the courts. 1t
has been the opinion OF the counsel for
the city in this case that the city can
not recover back from the plaintiffs IN
this case anywhere near the amount of
money already expended on the part of
tho city in carrying on the litigation
thus far and will be unable to recover
back from the plaintiffs n large portion
Of further expense In carrying on the
litigation if the case is further consider
ed. For these reasons, we believe IT Is
to the financial interest of the city to ac-
cept the proposed settlement.
Respectfully submitted
NJ q. LEARY, city Attorney.
Just how much the litigation over the
municipal plant has cost the city Is not
known. Two large bills in connection
with the case. however, were presented
to the board last nigh and these We're
referred to the city attorney. one bill
was from the firm of Brown y Hopkins
for services In the case, amounting to
$3.50 and the other was from r.. NJ. Hor-
ton. likewise for services, for SSGl.77. II
is understood that these Items constitute
but small portion of the actual cost
to the city of the injunction proceed
ings.