Lawrence democrat. (Lawrenceburg, Tenn.) 1884-1925, 1913-03-05

outside Of the facts in reference to the
suit against The corporation by certain
property holders.
Scott Is supposed 10 have been em.
ploVed BY the city to survey the lines
between the streets and owners Of the
adjoining lots This he pretended to
do
Some Of the parties who owned lots
fronting East on North Military street,
fronting East on Mahr street and front.
ing North on Gaines street. we're not
satisfied with the so-called Scott sur
vsY as adopted by the city counsel, and
complained 10 said city council. Get
ting no relief, they filed suit to annul
the Scott survey so far as affected
their respective lots
Among other things, il was charged
in the Bill, that the city Of Lawrence
burg had not brought any condemna-
ton proceedings whereby il was author.
lied to appropriate the property of
compliments to widen streets; that the
Scott survey was not correct &c.
The city Of Lawrencebure, in its
answer, said tina. the Scott survey was
correct, and that to build side walks to
conform to the Scott survey would not
appropriate any Of the property that
belonged TO any Of the compliments to
said suit A great deal might have
been said 10 the bill and answer and
the proof as 10 the correctness or iucor.
RICHNESS Of the Scott survey as a whole;
but any reputable lawyer will agree
with me, that the real issue in such a
case, was whether the Scott survey was
correct IS it affected the property of
complainants. While compliments in.
troduced proof TO show that the survey
was worthless as a whole, the only use
that such proof could conserve, would
be to help establish the contention that
said survey was not correct as regards
the property Of the parties that brought
the suit.
The Chancellor, on final hearing,
sustained the contention Of complain
ants in said suit and taxed the city
with the cost. The city appealed to
the court Of Civil Appeals, and the
court of Civil Appeals affirmed the de.
cisioH OF the Chancellor and taxed the
city Of the cost of the appeal, and the
city is now trying to get the case in
the Supreme court, The cost, so far
taxed to, the city, including the $40 So
paid to get the deposition Of E A Scott,
according to my calculation, amount,
10 about $4,000 OF course each
party pays its own attorneys fees.
1t is simply ridiculous for any one
with any degree of intelligence what
ever, to insist that the Chancellor anG
the court of Civil Appeals held that the
Scott survey stands as the legal sur
VeY OF Luxembourg" if thereby il
meant that said survey is correct. Boil
the Chancellor and the court of Ciyi
Appeals held precisely to the contrary
in so far as same affected the proper
tV of complainants in said suit bu
neither Of said courts undertook TO sa
whether said survey is legal or correc
as whole or as il affected the proper
ty of persons not parties to said sui
1t is another proposition, equally al
surd, to make the bold and unwarrant
ed assertion, as made by Outsider, thu
to cut into the Enclosures as indicate
BY the sO-called Scott survey, woul
benefit the property as much as
would damage the same,
1t seems to me to be a severe n
Election on the members of the Gil
council, as we'll as the able lawye
representing the city in the litieatio
TO say that they have not enough sen
to know when they are beaten in
suit, and that they would put the tt
payers to such great expense when Il
city lost nothing by the decree of Il
Chancellor or the action of the court
Civil Appeals in affirming said deere
S.A. CARRELL.