Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1917-06-19
OF SALEM
PAVING CASES DENIED
Court Stands On Precedent
As To AdVertising---Its
Up To the City

are getting ready TO debate the ques-
tion of whether the voters of Salem
should approve an amendment to the
city charter authorizing the city to
make reassessments for street paving,
the supreme court today adds interest
to the situation by refusing to grant
rehearing in the two street improve
ment cases which have thrown the city
into turmoil These cases are Watson
ct al VS.. Salem and Albert VS.. Salem.
In the petition for a rehearing in
these cases, the city contended that
section 531, Lords Oregon Laws, does
not apply to the measurement of time
for the publication Of notices by cities
or towns. In the first place the court
held against the city on the grounds
that legal notice was not given to bid
ders before the contracts for the street
paving were let.
"The petitioner relies on Chung Vow
VS.. Hop Chung" points out the court in
its opinion, which was written by Chief
Justice Mcbride, "The case cited is not
applicable, for it refers to what is now
known as section 500, L. O. L., pro-
vision relating to the proof of the
service of notice.
As pointed out in the original opin-
ion section 531, L. o. L., has served as
the standard by which to measure time
not only in actions and suits but also in
other proceedings To refuse to abide
by the standard fixed by that statute
would be to ignore rule that is firmly
established by precedents.
"The remainder of the argument in
tba pn4;fso,, 1,roaaa1e ,,nOa fha thaorv
that we held that the notice should have
appeared in six successive issues of a
daily newspaper. We did not rule that
the charter required the notice to be
printed and to appear in six successive
issues of the newspaper.
"The original opinion points out that
section 26 of the charter embraces two
elements: (1) The period of publica-
tion; and (2) the manner of publication.
The period of publication is measured
by applying the rule established in sec
tion 531, L. o. L. This rule excludes
the first day of publication in determin-
ing the period Of time"
The court then cites examples, say
ing in part: eff statute required
that notice be published for not less
than five successive weeks in a weekly
newspaper it would not be necessary for
the notice to appear in six weely is
sues, although as stated in the original
opinion it is fair to assume that all
would concede that the day Of the first
publication would be excluded in com
putting the period of five successive
weeks. The rule that is applicable to
weeks is likewise applicable to days.
tIn the original opinion it is dis
| tinctly stated, NOT that the notice should
have appeared in the sixth issue of the
newspaper, but that "The right to Of
fer bids should have been kept open
until the end Of June 10th, and the
bids should not have been opened until
June 11.''
Other opinions were handed down by
the supreme court today as follows:
Max Holtz, ct al appellants, VS.. Will
liam P. Olds, ct al; appealed from
Multnomah; suit involving judgment
for $4,000; petition for rehearing de-
MED; opinion by Justice Harris.
Rogue River Fruit & Produce associa-
tion VS.. Chambers company, ap-
pellant; appealed from Jackson; action
to recover damages for faulty insulat-
ling material in plaintiffs cold storage
warehouse; opinion by Justice Burnett;
Circuit Judge Calkins affirmed.
LaGrande National bank VS.. E. w.
Oliver, appellants; appealed from Multi
nomah; suit on promissory note; op-
inion by Justice Burnett; Circuit Judge
Morrow reversed.
Eda J. Lindstrom VS.. National Life
Insurance company, appellant; appealed
from Multnomah; suit to recover on an
insurance policy; opinion by Justice
Moore; Circuit Judge Gatens reversed.
R. W. Riner, appellant, vs. South
western Surety Insurance company; ap-
pealed from Multnomah; action on an
Indemnity insurance policy; opinion by
Justice Harris; former Circuit Judge
McGinn reversed.
A. E. Holden, ct al, VS.. A. F. Goats
Lumber company, ct al, appellants; ap-
pealed from Tillamook, suit for damages
for flooding lands; opinion by Justice
Benson; Circuit Judge Bagley affirmed.
II. P. Marks, appellant, VS.. First Ma
tional bank Of Roseburg; appealed from
Douglas; action to recover on alleged
deposits; opinion by Justice McCamant;
Circuit Judge skipworth affirmed
Petition for Te-hearing was denied IN
Morgan VS.. Johns, while rehearing was
granted in the case of Stevens VS.. My
ers.