The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1913-04-11
CITY MAKES al CONCESSIONS N INJUNCTION SUIT

lars, ($675O.OO) was fair and reason
able for any charge incident to the
issue and delivery Of said bonds, but
alleges that said charge was excess
sive, unreasonable, unjust and unfair
to the City of Virginia and to the
tax payers thereof and alleges that
any charge in excess Of Seven Hun
dred Fifty Dollars. ($750.oo) was I'M
reasona Bile, unnecessary, and uncalled
for
Further replying, plaintiff alleges
and shows to the Court that he IL in
formed and verify believes that the
expense Of printing, lithographing and
securing ready for delivery the bond
issue OF the City Of Virginia, will not
exceed the sum Of One Hundred Ten
Dollars, ($11o.00), and alleges the fact
to be that a contract has been made
with certain publishing house Of
the city of Chicago, ILL.,, for the do
ing of all work and furnishing of all
material nee essary and requisite for
the delivery to the City of Virginia
he bonds constituting the issue in
question herein for the sum Of One
Hundred Ten Dollars, ($110.00).
Plaintiff further alleges and shows
% the Court that he is informed and
.'erily believes that the opinion Of the
law firm Of Wood & Oakley of Chi
cago. ILL.,, as to the legality of tine
.,onds in question can be secured for
, sum not to exceed Three Hundred
Dollars, ($300.O0) and alleges the
acts to be that said firm Of attorneys
have already been employed to fur
nish such legal opinion and are to
be paid therefor the sum Of Three
Hundred Dollars, ($30Q.00).
Plaintiff further alleges that he Is
informed, verify believes and charges
he facts to be that the firm Of Storey.
rhorndike, Palmer & Dodge Of
Boston. Has,, will furnish the City
# Virginia its legal opinion as to the
alidity Of the bond issue of the City
of Virginia in question herein, for a
UNI not TO exceed Three Hundred
Dollars, ($300.0O.
Further replying, plaintiff alleges
md shows to the Court that he is
informed. verify believes and charges
he facts to be that the sum Of Seven
Hundred Fifty Dollars, ($75O.O0) will
cover all attorneys fees, cost of print
ne or lithographing bonds and other
Incidental expense necessary and re
Iuisite to the issue and delivery Of
he bonds here in question and thai
10 sum in excess of said Seven Hun.
'red Fifty Dollars, N75O.o0) would b,
equired therefor.
Further replying, plaintiff denies
, each and every allegation contained
Paragraph Is Of defendants
answer and specifically denies that i
was necessary to close the bond sal
prior to April !, 1913, and alleges tina
| ,rior to the commencement of thi
| tction, and on the goth day Of March
1919, the City of Virginia secured al
| extension of said time TO May l, 1913
md plaintiff further alleges that h
is informed and verify believes tina
said Virginia Electric Power & Waite
o. is ready and willing to extend sal,
line for any period not less than on
calendar month necessary to consum
mate said sale.
Plaintiff further alleges that Their,
was no reason why any Of the reput
able bond attorneys of the Unitet
states could not he secured by tn,
City Of Virginia to give an earl!
opinion upon the validity Of sai<
'Onus and that no acts of legislator,
should he necessary to make sale
,sue Of bonds legal, unless the man
ner in which said bond proposition
was conducted was irregular and con
.rary to the provisions of the cit,
charter and laws Of the state. ant
plaintiff alleges that long prior to tn,
time Of calling for bids for the sale o.
said bonds, the learned special coun
Sci for the city secured the passag,
OF an act Of the legislature curing al
defects in said bond proceeding!
heretofore made and alleges that i
said special counsel had drawn sale
legislative act with proper care ant
skill, there would and should have
been no necessity of any further legis
ia,ive acts upon said bond issue an
alleges that If any defect existed IL
said proceedings, it was due to tn,
careless manner in which said pro
ceedinss were conducted.
Plaintiff further alleges that tn,
learned special counsel for the Cit,
Of Virginia conducted a campaign be-
tore the legislature of the State o.
Minnesota to secure a second curative
act upon said bond issue and tina
there was no reason why said cit,
should pay any other person therefor
Further replying. plaintiff allege.
that he has not sufficient knowledg.
or information to form a belief as t
the allegations set forth in PARAGRAPH