The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-08-06
METERS COST CITY MORE THAN INCOME
(Continued from Page 1)

He reviews conditions which ex- isted prior to the meter installation when policemen would chalk mark cars tires to determine the length of time they parked. There was great dissatisfaction then, he states on the part of car owners who felt they were forced from the streets before the permitted length of time for parking expired. There was great difficulty of enforcement of parking regulations then, he states, but the meters have completely re- moved it to the greatly expressed satisfaction of the public, he adds. The smallest existing coins are charged for parking privileges he states in defending the meters as a regulatory measure, and the nickel deposits were required, the brief states, only to prevent the usurpa- tion of a long period of time by operators who actually require only short period of time.
 MOTc fCGaSONS GIVem
 Refuting still further the argu- ment that parking meters constitute 8 revenue measure, MT. Lynch says, Even though an incidental profit were made, the mere fact of the profit would not void the regulation unless the profit were so unreason- able and the fee so large as to in- dicate beyond doubt that the inten- tion of the regulation was for rev. enue rather than for merely a reg ulation." As proof that the police commissioners intended the meters as regulatory measures the first regulations passed on Dec. 4, 194O are quoted. They refer to the traffic congestion and menace to the pub lie created by parking in central streets and to the difficulty of reg ulation through old methods of en- forcement.
 The plaintiffs attorney, Law renee Lewis, claimed that the rent item in the expense listing should not be allowed as an expense and that only 20 per cent deprecia- tion item should be permitted. Even if that were done, MT. Lynch states the plaintiff still can prove nc profit.
 Rights of Plaintiff
 Speaking of the plaintiffs alleged right as an abutting property owner the corporation counsel states that considerations of public welfare have modified the ancient theory that 8 property owner has rights to the center of the highway. He points to the laying of trolley tracks placing of gas and water pipes, elec- trio power, telephone conduits, fire hydrants, mail boxes, air raid warn. ing sirens, school zone signs and nu- merous other types of materia placed upon streets because o1 needs of a complex society. H. quotes from a court decision which states 'The owner in a highway holds his state subject to 8 publit right, which is equally subject tc public control so far as may b. necessary to protect the public ir the full enjoyment of whatever be. longs to them" Atty. Cassidy claimed that meters placed in from of his property on Leavenworth ant West Main streets violated his prop. erty rights. MT. Lynch makes ref erences to cases in other citie! where parking meters were held not to be encroachment on rights o1 abutting owners. The meters have not hindered MT. Cassidy in any way, MT. Lynch adds.
 Appropriation Legal
 Appropriations were made fol purchase of police equipment anc parking meters fall in that cate. gory, it is claimed by the defense in refutation of charges that there was no legal authority for the meter contract in that no appropriation for meters was made by the boart of finance and aldermen.
 In his conclusion in which thu corporation counsel asks for a judg. ment in accordance with his claims he suggests that costs to the plain. tiff be remitted "in view of the pub. lie spirit of the plaintiff who, al though a resident of Watertown undoubtedly Is sincere in his effor to assist the public of Waterbury.
 The action was heard in common pleas in June before Judge Thoma J. Wall. The plaintiff will be re quired to file an answer to the de fense brief before the case will gt before Judge Wall for decision.