The Punta Gorda herald. [volume] (Punta Gorda, Fla.) 1893-1958, 1922-02-10

bonds in the sum of $74,00O.O0 with
which to construct said Fort Myers
Short Route from the M post of
Section 5, Township 43, South Range
y, East, to Fort Myers, and
Whereas, Charlotte county pro-
poses to issue bonds in an amount
. efficient to complete the grading of
aid State Road Number Five and the
aiding of said Fort Myers Short
Route within the limits of said Char
lotte county and also to complete the
hardsurfacing of said roads within
the limits of said county, thus af-
Iording hard surfaced road for the
ITamiami Trail from the Sarasota
county line to the Lee county line,
and
Whereas, Charlotte county desires
that the alignment, width of right-of-
way and width and grade of roadbed
for all improvements the cost of
which are to be paid from the pro-
lSNNe'' Va S"iS vi oilu Sndll lltCt
the standard requirements for State
roads as fixed by the State Road De-
partment and the Federal govern
ment, and to this end said county
desires all the assistance from the
engineers of the department provided
for in Section 1897, Revised Statutes
1920,
Therefore, be it resolved: That
the Board Of County Commissioners
of Lee county be invited to join this
board in petition to the State Road
Department to extend State Road
Number Five from Punta Gorda to
Fort Myers and to designate said Fort
Myers Short Route as the route of
such extension; and
Be lit further Resolved: That the
clerk be directed to furnish a certi-
fled copy of this resolution to the
Boards of County Commissioners of
Lee and Sarasota counties.
The entire session of the board on
| TUESDAY morning was consumed in a
discussion of ways and means of con-
testing the suit of the Richmond
Trust Company in the matter of the
Murdoch drainage bonds Most of
the discussion was devoted to a let
ter written to County Attorney Han
cock by Hon. E. ]. L'Engle, an at
tOrney of Jacksonville, in which the
latter proposed to represent the five
counties involved in the suit for
retainer fee of 10000 each, an ad-
ditional fee of $4,000 to be charged
Charlotte county for services in the
individual suit against said county.
Mr.. Written did not like the idea
Of Charlotte county being "mixed I'D"
With the other counties involved and
he apparently preferred that this
county should play a lone hand"
because he feared that the other four /,
might try to relieve them
7lNes ii all liability and throw the
burden upon this county; but it was
explained that, in the suit against
he FIVE counties, the interests of all Il
re identical.
Colonel Hancock stated that the eff
or;s OF the defense counsel would be |,
'xertod towards securing a decision
u the court that the Murdoch drain
,ge bonds are not county liability,
he success of which contention would i
BE to relieve all the counties of any |,
liability in the matter and bring the |,
suits to an end In that event,
the only recourse of the bondholders
would be to sue the district, and then
would arise the question of the val
idity of the bonds.
1t was finally decided to accept Mr.. /
l. Engle's offer to represent the coun- |
ty in the suits filed, which was in ac-
cordance With previous resolution |
OF the board directing their attorney |
TO engage the best available assis- |