Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1916-09-07
SIDEWALK CASE DECIDED
Judge Palmer Rules That Isaac
Perelman Must Pay.
Action Was n Test Cnsc and Expccta-
ton Now Is That other LOng-Duc
Assessments VIII lie
Paid.

Entry in the case of the city of Bur
lington against Isaac perelman, an action
on the part of the city to recover the
sum of s5160 for sidewalk construction
in front of the defendants lot on North
avenue. wps entered by Judge c. S.
Palmer, judge of city court, yesterday,
Judgment being that the plaintiff recover
the amount with interest since November
IL. 1913 This is the case which was
brought by former City Attorney A. J..
sherman as n test case, and there Is
no doubt that now that the case has
been decided favorably to the city, the
many thousands of dollars due the city
in sidewalk and curbing assessments will
be paid by the taxpayers rather than
taken to court. The delay in entering the
Judgment. which was ready two months
ago. and of the findings of fact and con-
| illusions of law was to give the counsel
| for both the city and defendant OPP
| portunty to file any amendment to the
| findings of fact.
At the time of trial Mr.. Perelmar was
represented by NJ q. Leary and r. T..
Brown and Mr.. Sherman, then city at
torney. represented the city. Tho find
ings Of fact and conclusions of law as
!
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CoNCLU-
SIONS OF LAW
This is an action instituted by the city
of Burlington, to recover the sum of
ffty-one dollars and sixty-cents. C&l SOD
the amount of a sidewalk assessment
levied against the defendant for a cement
sidewalk constructed by the city and
abutting defendants lot on North avenue
in the city of Burlington and I make
the following findings of fact in the
case.
FIRST.
That a petition signed by a majority
of the land owners abutting on Nortf
avenue lying between North street ant
North Bend street was presented to the
board of aldermen of said city on the 16tl
day Of June, 1918 and that the said peti
ton was acted upon by said board or
the It'll day Of July. 1918; and such actor
was approved by the mayor on the 9ti
day Of July, 1918, and that the stree
commissioners were directed to construc
and they did construct said sidewalk, II
accordance with the resolution adopted
by the board of aldermen, and assess
ments were made against the varou
property owners That the notice to sue
owners of the various lots to be affecte
and including this defendant was give
by said board, including this defendant
. the defendant accepting service of sue
= notice August %. 1919; that hearing wa
had by said street commissioners ard tn
construction assessment was made a
as set forth in the plaintiffs amende
declaration.
SECOND.
For the purpose Of this case / find tina
y the assessment of the commissioner
= made at the same time the assessmer
:, was made against the defendants prov
erty covered lots Of twenty and MOI
real estate owners and that the assess
. ment against all lot owners was al
@. rived at in the same manner.
= THIRD
d That the method adopted by the boar
II Of street commissioners in deterrinir
& the amount of the assessment to
levied against each property owner W.
to ascertain the actual cost of Constru
o ton Of the sidewalk fronting each Il
and adiudge each lot benefited to II
a. amount Of the cost of constructing Il
& sidewalk And I find that the aCtu
o. cost to the plaintiff in constructing II
)" sidewalk against the defendants lot
," controversy, was fifty-onc dollars ar
- sixty-cents $3.50 which the defenda1
~ refused 10 pay, this sum being Il
- amount which the commissioners a.
70 Judged to he the benefit acCruing to II
;" defendant by the laying of the sidewa
. abutting his lot.
err Defendant Perelman did not sign 4
Eetiton for the sidewalk in co
troversy
&c FIFTH.
rd That G. 5 Palmer. judge of the Blu
in linston city court is a resident ana ia
81 payer of the city of Burlington, and W
by such at tho time he tried and decid
S. this case
nd All exhibits in the case, the Burlrgt
B. city charter, certified copies Of the ci
he ter here in issue, together with
~. transcript of the testimony, are referr
ee to and made a part or this report
nd findings.
IN CONCLUSION OF LAW.
That the plaintiff is entitled to reco,
go of the defendant the sum Of Fifty-o
dollars and sixty cents, H5l.6D with
rk interest thereon from the 18th day
he November, 1913 Let Judgment be enter
las accordingly.