The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1918-06-22
TAXPAYER WOULD
INTERVENE IN
CITY PAVING SUIT

Jake Bodovitz, through his at
torneys, Sigler and Howard, has
filed petition in the district court
in the case of the Ardmore Con-
struction Company against the city,
a suit to recover $32,ol5.oo for paw
ing and material, asking to be al
lowed to intervene. He sets forth
in his petition that he is a citizen,
resident and taxpayer and that as
such his interests will be effected
by the result of this suit.
Bodovitz asks the court that he
have permission of the court to in
tervene herein and make defense
to this action. He alleges in his pc
tition that this suit is not being
properly defended by the city attor-
ney, the mayor and the board OF
commissioners and that they are not
properly representing the interests
of the city, but are attempting to
confess judgment herein. Bodovitz
alleges further that no Indebtedness
exists in favor of the plaintiff here
in from the city of Ardmore, but
that the plaintiff has been fully
paid by the city commissioners 'out
of other funds of the city OF Ard
more and that this suit is an effort
to secure a judgment and afterward
issue funding bonds to replace the
money thus illegally expended by
the board OF commissioners and IL
legally paid.
He also alleges that these facts
were known to the mayor. the
board of commissioners and the city
attorney and that they failed to
make defense herein; that this
suit was originally prepared by the
clerk of this court and on the same
, day the suit was filed, without any
summons having been issued, the
city attorney filed an answer here
in, which, in effect, is confession
of judgment.
1t is also alleged that the petit
ton states no cause OF action and
that a general demurrer would have
been sustained had the same been
filed by the city attorney; that the
statute provides means and meth
cd of paving and provides that the
city may never be liable for same.
Basis of Suit.
The original petition in this case
was filed by Ben H. Mason, as at
torney for the plaintiff. 1t sets
forth that the city of Ardmore is
indebted to the plaintiff in the sum
stated above for paving and ma
terial furnished during the months
of September, October, November
and December, 1917, and January,
February, March and April, 1918;
that the claims were presented and
audited but the allowance OF the
claims was refused for lack OF
funds; that the claims are just, due
and wholly unpaid and are valid
claims against the city OF Ardmore
out of the general fund OF said city
for the fiscal year ending une So
Then follows the list of claims, Civ
ing the number, date and amount.
There are l9 of them, all for paving
and material, totaling $32,9l5.69.
An answer was filed in the case,
purporting to be the answer of the
city of Ardmore, but it is not sign
ed. There is also a general demur-
rer to the answer and this also is un-
signed.
Taxpayer Filed Answer and Brief.
Notice was published of the time
when the case would come before
the court for trial, June l. On
Nav Is II. B. Harts filed an an
swer in the case, setting up that he
is a resident and taxpayer of the
city of Ardmore and interested ii
nancially in the suit and asked that
the pleadings herein be made more
definite and certain. He also filed
an exhaustive brief, in the case, cit
ing the statute and the decisions OF
the courts, going to show that the
city could not pay for paving out
of the general fund.
The case was heard June by
Judge w. P. Freeman. The wit
nesses testifying at that time were
Ben H. Mason, George w. Groom,
city clerk; Jmes A. Bass, city at
torney, and w. R. Roberts, mayor.
No judgment was entered in the
case, the court holding it open for
additional testimony.