Norwich bulletin., 1915-02-23
OVER ADVERTISEMENTS
Thames Street Property Owners See No Use in Paying for Sewer From Which They Get No Bene6t-APpear Be fore Common Council Committee-E4arrson Avenue Property Owners Raise Point That Repairs Have Been Made Not Sewer Built.

brought up, Attorney Herman AIofsin, End addressed the court in his own behalf and representing Frank II. Smith.
 The cost of the Harrison avenue sewer was S379.56. The property owners whom the committee reorted were benefited were Ellis w. Abbobtt, James A IIiscox. Frank H. Smith and Herman Alofsin, 2nd, on the easterly side of Harrison avenue and Mary Smith, Hazel B. Smith and Patrick F. Bray on the westerly side Of Harl1- son avenue, and Charles Bousch and Amelia Bousch on the northerly side of Sturteyant avenue.
 Attorney Alofsin read from the deed of Sturtevant to the city and raised the point that the sewer had been in use for 20 years and he looked upon this work that had been done as re- pairs to an old sewer which the city was bound to keep in repair by the terms of the deed. It was not build ing 8 new sewer but repairing an old one. The only one to complain about conditions there said MT. Alofsin was MT. Bousch and Mir. Bousch ought to be the one to pay for the sewer. The attorney said he understood the sewer pipe from the BouscE house ran up hill and the sewage made trouble in the Bousch cellar. ..--. ...-
 P. F. Bray said he had spoken to
 She city engineer a. year ago about this Harrison avenue sewer and was
 told there couldn't be any assessment on account of it. Because of that
 statement MT. Bray said he had never
 done anything about the sewer until
 now In other places in the city
 Mir Bray said he knew that sewers
 had been repaired and there had been
 no assessments and he thought he
 ought not to be assessed as he eN-
 perienced no benefit.
 James 4. Hiscox said he agreed witt
 about all that MT. Alofsin had stated and he certainly objected to be as- seSsed for the sewer from which his lot could be very little benefited. HC discussed with City Engineer Pitcher the grade at which the old Sewer was laid in the streets and brought out tht fact that the old Akron pipe sewel was laid with one section of it on aT l upward slope. This was laid wheI MT. Fellows was street commission CT, MT. Pitcher said.
 i Civil Engineer George E. Pitche made d statement of q. telephone cal from Mrs Mary E. Smith and Mis- Hazel Smith who were willing to b. 1 assessed for part of their propert,
 which was benefited.
 He said that the old sewer was 1 6 inch one but the new one was pu | in part of 10 and part of inch pipe | 1 Pitcher showed how the grades o 1 the old and the new severe differed i He denied that the Bousch sewer raj up hill or that the benefit was entire i ly for the Bousch house, but said i i was for all the people whose sewag i was running into the Bousch cellar. MT. Alofsin asked the committee a
 to the method they intended to follow i in case they made an assessment O l the property owners and was told b l Alderman Hourigan that it would D l for benefits derived. He asked furth 1 CT if it would be proportionate t 1 street frontage ad was told that tn | committee was only there to hear tn i property owners ana to take into con l sideration what these had to say whe the committee conferred later over tn matter.
 The hearing closed at 9.45 o'cIocl | All the protestants said that all the wanted was fair treatment.