St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1913-06-14

LIZ 4tOoS4 vi M xii ~ oPSANy
Opelousas, the outcome of which
was that the city obtained pos
session of two streets belonging
to Mr.. Sandoz.
Like Mr.. Littell we are deeply
interested in the material well
fare of the city, but we are
equally interested in its good
name and fair repute, and there
fore believe that Mr.. Sandoz
should be paid at least the value
of the fencing along the streets
taken from him, viz: the sum of
S200.36 1.-TWO hundred dollars
and thirty-six %cents).
Respectfully,
H. E. Estorge, NJ. L. Swords,
A. A. Anding, J. B. Brock,
Henry Lastrapes, Jr., Jno. w.
j. J. Healey, Chas. F.
Boagni, Leo J. Mayer, A. Leon
Dupre, L. I. Castillo, Robert
Chachere, Arthur Simon, R. Lee
GaftanQ, /. zoos, e. MQfIlHlnVeS.
Motion by Dir. Shaw
That the sum of $500 6 be
paid out Of any available funds
to Mr.. L. A. Sandoz, said sum
being to cover his claim against
the city for fencing along the
northern extension OF Walnut
Street.
Seconded by Mr.. Dunbar.
Yeas: Shaw, Dunbar, Daniel.
Nays: Sicily.
Mr.. Blacksl1er declined to vote.
Motion carried.
The Mayor VETOES the above
motion for the following reasons:
Mayors Veto.
This claim against the city
is absolutely without merit.
The city is in no manner indebt-
ed to any one for fencing that
had no existence. There never.
was any fence where Walnut
Street lntersected the continual
ton of said street through the
property in question, except the
fence on Sandoz street of which
only forty feet was removed by
the city to make the continue
ton of said Walnut street, which
had been donated by the claim
ant and for which forty feet he
was offered the sum of $500.
There was only one fence around
one lot belonging to a private in
dividual, now a nonresident.
The city is prepared to prove
by numerous witnesses that from
the point where Walnut street
intersected the streets donated
there was no fence whatever
along said street donated.
[ am, therefore, at a loss to
what fence was destroyed
by the city or what this Board is
paying for. No claim was over
for compensation for
fencing before this Board of
Aldermen until January, 1913.
A long while after the courts
had decided that the streets had
been dedicated to the city. The
only claim set up by the claim
ant was for the value of
S treets and no claim
whatever for the value of fene-
ing. In this suit against theI
city for value of streets it was
contended that one of the con-
ditions of the donation had not
been complied with, to-Wit: The
building Of a fence by the city
the streets donated, which
is self-evident from the very
contention that no fencing was
otherwise it would not
have been necessary to require
as "a part Of the acceptance of
the donation that a fence be
When this demand for
payment of fencing was made
upon this Board at its meeting
on January 2, 1918, eight years
after the proposition to donate
and six years after the streets
were open by the city, a COM
mittee composed Of Mr.. Dudley
L. Guilbeau and Aldermen Sicily
and Shaw, were appointed to in
vestigate the claim and report
their conclusion to this Board.
a very full and complete
Investigation, a majority Of the
committee, Messrs. Guilbeau
and Sicily reported in writing
that there was nothing in the
against the city. that the
claimant was. not entitled toany-
thing whatever and recommend
ed that the Board reject his
demand. Alderman S a W
thought something should be
given him. The Beard in order
to get rid of this matter, while
denying liability, offered the
$685. 90 as already stated. The
entire membership of this
with the exception
Of Mr.. Dunbar who was
not then a member, agreed in
open council that this would end
the matter as far as the Board
- - -AAI