Hopkinsville Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1889-1918, 1914-03-24
And Left Without Recourse On
City In Payment For
Big Sewer.
CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT
Foreign To The Intent of The
Council and Mayor Who
Entered Into It.

One of the most important suits of
the term was tried Saturday, the
suit of the Meachain c Contracting Co.
VS.. the City of Hopkinsville for
balance of 81 ,425.95 of the cost of
constructing the Tenth street sewer
in 1912. The following jury was
empaneled to try the case: o. H.
Milton, j. M. Miller, w. T. Hopper,
j. E. Payne, C. A. Carter, Basel
Roberts, Walter Goode, j. E. King,
w. M. Jordan, H. E. Edwards, T. D.
MCGEE and G l.. Hord.
The testimony was completed Fri
day evening and the case was sub
mitted to the jury at l o'clock and
an hour later decided against the
contractors by 10 to 2, the effect be-
ing to make the city repudiate its
contract and get portion of the
sewer without paying for it.
The case turned on the construction
of the contract as executed by the
mayor for the city, which set forth
that the estimated cost of the sewer
was 50, 900 and that So, 900 was to be
paid in cash and an apportionment
claim given against theIllinois Central
Railroad Co. for the portion through
the railroad yards with this proviso
in the ordinance ordering the work
and incorporated into the contract:
'Tn the event said Illinois Central
Railroad Co. fails and refuses to pay
the contract price for that portion
of the said proposed sewer for which
| it is liable, or refuses to give free
and willing consent for same to be
constructed under its property west
of Water street, where Tenth street
formerly extended to the river, then
the City of Hopkinsville, through its
executive, legislative and legal de-
partments, shall take whatever steps
that may be necessary to compel said
Railroad to comply with the condi-
tons of said grant, franchise or per-
nit, and to condemn a right of way
under and through the railroad prop
erty for said sewerage purposes. "
(The grant referred to was the o.
| V. franchise of 1891, requiring that
railroad to take care of drainage I'M
der the streets it crosses or forfeit
its grant.)
The contract further provided that
the city would by further appropri-
ations" make up what was not Sc
cured from the railroad. r. E.
| Cooper and Rodman Meacham, pres
ident and general manager of the
Contracting Co. and Chas. M. Meach-
am, former mayor, who signed for
the city, testified that the contract
was intended to provide that any
litigation to collect the railroad APP
portionment was to be conducted by
the city and that if the claim was not
paid the city was to pay it. Six of
the seven councilmen who were pres
ent when the contract was ordered
testified. Former Councilmen Ran
die, Barnett, Lebkuecher and Glass,
who voted for it, swore that the city
was to enforce the collection or make
good the warrant. Former Council
men Wood and Higgins testified that
they did not so understand. Both
stated that they voted against award
ing the contract, Mr.. Wood because
he was opposed to the work being
done on account of the financial con-
dition of the city and Mr.. Higgins
because he was not willing to spend
more than $4,000 on it. (The seventh
member, Mr.. Galbreath. also voted
for the contract.) The former en-
gineer, B. f. McClaid, said his un.
Outstanding was that the city was to
pay S., 600 and the railroad the rest.
Three members of the last Council,
Messrs. Harmed, Dabney and Hay