Year: 1876

, East Fourth street for the purpose of hear
, ing Charles B. Lore's opinion upon tn
, legality of Council to collect money TO


work done in front of their property, tn


macadamizing of Fourth street, was hell
last evening In the office of Esquire Frazer
Third and market streets.


Esquire Frazer took the chair, and tn
Secretary, Mr.. Abner Sparks, read the pro-
ceedings of the previous meeting, whicl
we're adopted. He then read the report O.
the committee on attorney, containing tht
opinion of Chas. B. Lore as follows
| WILMINGTON, Aug. z, 1876
VIM. NJ. FRANCIS, Dear Sir:


After careful consideration am of tn,
opinion that the city cannot rightfully, o.
lawfully, enforce payment of claims for thu
alleged matchmaking of Fourth street
from Market street TO the Christiana river
Each separate owner will have to resist pay
ment by Injunction, If the city insists or
pay ment. Property owners cannot join
suits. Each one must defend for himself
1t is very doubtful whether owners who
have already paid can recover back the
same, as such payments have benn made
voluntarily and without protest.


Yours very truly.


CHARLES B. LORE.
! The report, was on motion accepted and
ordered to be filed.


MIR. Lore not being present, motion was
at once made that he be present
and explain more fully the matter.


The chair appointed Messrs. Davis and
Gawthrop as Committee to wait:upon Mr.
Lore, and escort him to the meeting. A
recess of five minutes was taken.
Mr.. Lore soon made his appearance, and
the chairman informed him that it was the
wish of the t1legtihg to have him explain
fully, and to the satisfaction of all; an
give the points which he proposed to make,
in case the case was taken to court.
Mr.. Lore said that there were several
strong points, which in his judgment would
i be fatal to the City Council. The points
which he had examined fully were,
First-In doing the work on Fourth street,
the city changed the grade. The grades on
all the streets in the city are flied, and the
ordinance expressly says that they shall not
be changed. The altering of said grades,
therefore, by the Street Commissioner, was
illegal, as it was done without authority.


Secondly the city ordinance, it is provi-
ded that all work done for the city costing
over $4,000 shall be given out by contract
This work was not 30 done, but completed
by days labor.


Third-The work was assessed before it
was completed, and the ordinance expressly
provides for the contrary.


Fourth-Tbat the work is not macada-
mized road or pavement, and is an injury
to property and not benefit.


These, said Mr.. Lore, are four of the
leading points, and think that they will
be fatal to the city's right to recover.


When Mr.. Lore was questioned as to
whether those who had paid the amounts of
their assessment could recover from the
city, he said yes, if they could prove they
had no right to pay, or had been compelled
TO pay it by threat. If no proof could be
produced TO that effect, there would be no
possibility of a recovery. Money paid under
mistake Of law, in fact, cannot be recovered.
But, continued Mr.. Lore, those who have
paid for the paving of Fourth street are
exempt from any further payment here
after, no matter what improvement Council
may make in the matter.


Mr.. Lore said that if they had decided to
make q test case of it, he would recon-
mend that all join together. He said that
contest in court would cost considerable.
In order to prevent further payments you
will have to restrain the City Auditor by
an injunction from chancery. lift can be
settled amicably, in my opinion that would
be the better way, should such be the sense
of the meeting. l do not say this in the
interest of any lawyer or any court, but
because I think it can be settled without
litigation, and if the meeting SO desire, I
have no doubt but l can arrange the matter
with the City Auditor. He who goes to
law for the sake OF the law, is not very
wise man.


Col. Pretzschner said that he fully con-
CURED in the opinion of Mr.. Lore, that all
should act jointly in the affair if test case
was made.


MIR. Bringhurt alluded to the sale
of the Second Baptist Church,
advertised to take place to-day
and wanted to know if a test case could be
made of it. Mr.. Lore said that he thought
the City Solicitor would agree to that.


suppose your object is to get good
pavement more than anything else. Should
Council consent to put down a new one,
those who have already paid for the old one,
cannot be forced to pay again for
another, and those who have not
paid will be required to-
pay fair proportion.


Col. Pretzscher again arose and said that
Mr.. Paynter, when the matter was intro
duced in Council, recommended that the
street be watered. That, said the COL,
would cost about $1,000 a year. Then
again it was recommended to fill it up every
year with mud. That said the Col. would |
cost the city $4,000 a year,
which added to the $1,000 for watering
would in ten years cost the city $50, 900,
and the trouble would still be there. Now
if they would take say $25,O0O, and put
down good pavement, it would save the
city all that amount Of money, and good
pavement would last.


Mr.. Gawthrop, for the trustees of the
Seco nd Baptist church arose and asked Mr.. |
Lore If council had right to construct
pavements, alter grades &C., without the
wish or consent of the property owners in |
the vicinity where the improvement was