« ZurückWeiter »
Regular Meeting, Monday, January 9, 1905
7:30 O'CLOCK P. M.
stedt, Kunz, Brennan, Patterson, Sulli-
van, Wendling, Carey, Burns, Butter-
Council of the City of Chicago, Thurs-
Ald. Foreman moved that the minutes
of the adjourned meeting held December
17, 1904, and of the regular meeting held
December 19, 1904, be approved without
Communications from the Mayor, Comp-
troller, Corporation Counsel, City
Clerk, Commissioner of Public Works
and All Other City Officers, Depart-
ments and Branches of the City Gov-
His Honor, the Mayor, submitted the
January 9th, 1905. Honorable City Council of the City of
GENTLEMEN-In accordance with law I hereby report to your Honorable Body the names of persons imprisoned for violation of city ordinances, who have been released by me during the three weeks ending January 7th, 1905, together with the cause of such release.
Joseph Mikolsh, released for Ald. Hurt.
Frank Clark, released for Ald. Doherty and Mr. Clark.
Andy Powers, released for mother and cash paid $10.
Roy Stafford, released for wife.
John Bunakowski, released for wife and Ald. Wendling.
John Sweeney, released for wife. Frank Clifford, released for P. Carroll. Thos. O'Brien, released for wife.
Patrick Lynch, released for wife and Ald. Harkin.
Kittie M. Johnson, released for Supt. Sloan.
Thos. Ryan, released for Rev. John Dore.
Dennis Sheehey, released for wife. John Kroger, relased for Jas. Graham. Patrick Stack, released for Ald. Ryan. Thos. McCarthy, released for wife.
Walter Biddle, released for Ald. Rooney.
Frank Morelo, released for wife. "Geo. Black, released for Police Department.
Mary Doe, released for A. H. O'Brien. Daniel Wall, released for Ald. Richert. Henry Radliff, released for wife.
Patrick Collins, released for wife.
Frank Ptaenik, released for Ald. Cul. lerton.
Wm. Snyder, released for M. J. Doherty.
Thos. Reilly, released for P. Carroll.
J. W. Taylor, released for C. A. Wathier.
Geo. Jennings, released for wife.
Michael Cunningham, released for C. Timmin.
Henry Wolf, released for father.
Agnes Shepetski, released for A. J. Sabath.
Michael Clabet, released for John Hoyle.
Fred C. Brockley, released for Police Department.
Thos. Butler, released for J. T. Butler.
Margaret Cunningham, released for Ed Carroll.
John Armour, released for wife.
Arthur Green, released for Geo. Ter. rell.
Patrick Cooney, released for wife.
Andrew Paulsen, released for Alex.
Patrick Gouley, released for Ald. Fick.
Catherine Flannery, released for Mrs.
Frank Heming, released for wife.
January 9, 1905. To the City Council of the City of Chi
GENTLEMEN-I transmit herewith a copy of the report of the Corporation Counsel for the year 1904 (omitting the list of final judgments and report of the Prosecuting Attorney attached to the original) and respectfully suggest that it be filed and printed in the Council proceedings.
three (3) have been appealed to the Appellate Court; two (2) of the cases won by the city are pending on plaintiff's appeal to the Appellate Court.
Seventy-five (75) law cases were disposed of in the Circuit and Superior Courts of Cook County, twenty-one (21) of which were lost by the city. Four (4) of these were judgments against police officers for false arrests, etc., in which cases this department represented the officers.)
The city has appealed eighteen (18) of these cases to the Appellate Court. Five cases won by the city have been appealed by the plaintiffs.
Twenty-nine (29) cases were disposed of in the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois, of which the city won nineteen (19) and lost ten (10). Six (6) of the cases lost by the city were appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois, and two (2) of those won by the city were appealed by its opponents to that court. Thirteen (13) cases were disposed of in the Supreme Court of Illinois, the city winning five (5) and losing eight (8).
Nine (9) cases were disposed of in the United States courts, the city winning six (6) and losing three (3).
The following suits to recover alleged damages to property by track elevation were won by the city before juries in the Superior and Circuit Courts of Cook County:
Koropp vs. City, case No. 196,363, Superior Court; elevation C. & N. W. Ry. tracks, $5,000.
Gawlich vs. City, case No. 200,872, Superior Court; elevation same tracks, $5,000.
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL,
December 31, 1904. Hon. Carter H. Harrison, Mayor:
DEAR SIB-I respectfully submit the following report of the court work of the Office of the Corporation Counsel for the year 1904.
The total number of cases disposed of was one thousand two hundred ninetyfive (1,295), of which one thousand six.
teen (1,016) were special assessment and Owen & Austin Elevator Co. vs. City,
condemnation cases; one hundred nine
case No. 192,061, Circuit Court; eleva. (109) cases were disposed of in justices' tion same tracks, $25,000. courts.
During the past year no judgments Forty-four (44) Chancery cases were have been rendered against the city on disposed of in the Circuit and Superior account of damage to property by track Courts of Cook County. Five (5) of elevation, except by order of City Counthese were lost by the city, of which cil in settlement of two cases.
No judgments were entered during 1904 against the city on account of dam. ages by reason of the construction of the Northwest Land Tunnel (water tunnel), except by order of City Council in settlement of one case. The city, how ever, reversed the following two judgments which were rendered against it in the year 1903 on account of damages of this character:
Gould vs. City, case No. 200,767, Circuit Court; judgment $1,500; May 16, 1903.
Rust vs. City, case No. 202,571, Superior Court; judgment $4,490; May 8, 1903.
Another case of great importance to the city was decided by the Appellate Court during the past year, and resulted in partial victory to the city.
August 29, 1902, the Circuit Court, Judge Bishop of Du Page County presiding, entered judgment for $301,376.08 against the city in the suit of Joseph J. Duffy, a contractor constructing a section of the Northwest Land Tunnel, to recover money claimed by him to be due on his contract. The city promptly appealed to the Appellate Court. This court on November 29, 1904, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, made a finding of facts, and entered a judgment for $137,585.28, a decrease of $163,790.80. The city has appealed from this judgment to the Supreme Court. Following the city's notable victory in the Weir, McKechney litigation, which was of a similar character, and in which the city reversed in the Supreme Court a judgment of $555,560.22, the department is confident of completely defeating the claims of this contractor.
The Corporation Counsel is also the attorney for the Board of Local Improvements, and for convenience has assigned certain assistants to conduct the law work of that department, retaining the supervision over it, however. The work of that department for the year 1904 has been particularly gratifying, and I will briefly refer to it.
Eight hundred and twenty-nine (829) special assessment petitions were filed in the County Court; of this number three hundred and fifty-nine (359) were for paving, sixty-nine (69) for sewers, one hundred and eighty-three (183) for sidewalks, sixty-two (62) for water supply, seventy-three (73) for water service, and eighty-three (83) for drains. Seven hundred and fifty-four (754) assessments were confirmed; part of this number confirmed includes petitions filed in 1903, but pending and confirmed in 1904. One hundred and eleven (111) petitions were dismissed, either by the direction of the Board or Court. In the greater number of these, dismissal was necessitated on account of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Bickerdike and Kilgallen cases; new ordinances were passed, and now petitions filed, which have since been confirmed. One hundred and ninety (190) special assessment proceedings are now pending in the County Court. The amount of the assessments covered by these rolls, filed during the year 1904, is as follows: Paving
1,644,341.73 Water supply
111,149.10 Water service
.$9,302,751.70 Eighteen (18) condemnation
tried in the Circuit and Superior Courts. None were lost by the city. Fourteen (14) judgments were en tered in accordance with the Commissioners' reports and placed in collection. The remaining four (4) cases are pending on recast rolls.
The most notable condemnation case tried was the case of City vs. Wayman et al. for the widening of West Randolph street, from Halsted to Sangamon streets, which resulted in a victory for the city.
Forty-five (45) cases are now pending in the Circuit and Superior Courts, most
of which are suits brought by the City venile Court by an Assistant Prosecuting of Chicago on contractors' bonds to re- Attorney. All habeas corpus cases are corer damages under their guaranty to handled by this department. I attach repair pavements.
hereto a report of the Prosecuting AtSinety-one (91) objections were heard
torney showing in detail the work of in the County Court on application for
his department. judgment and order of sale for the non- The following important cases payment of special assessments, thirty- decided favorably to the interests of the two (32) of which were overruled, ten city in which the Corporation Counsel (10) sustained, and in forty-four (44) represented the city: the application was withdrawn, either
In the case of the Northwestern Elebecause there was a previous judgment
vated Railroad Company vs. City of Chior on account of defective notice of the
cago et al., to enjoin the Commissioner County Treasurer. Five (5) of those
of Public Works from interfering with sustained were on the ground that the
the erection of extensions to platforms property was in Section 16, school lands;
along the “Union Loop," Judge Tuley balance on account of error in the return.
held that the power to make changes in The Supreme Court has rendered forty an elevated structure was not a con(40) decisions; thirty-one (31) in favor tinuing one and was exhausted upon the of the city and nine (9) adverse. Ten
completion of the structure; that the (10) cases are now pending in the Su
city was not estopped by having granted preme Court.
permits theretofore to make similar exSix (6) cases were appealed to the Ap- tensions; that the city could not, for a pellate Court from Circuit and Superior consideration or otherwise, give over any Court judgments; three (3) judgments | portion of the public streets to a corwere affirmed wherein the city was ap- poration inconsistent with the use of pellee; one case was affirmed where the such streets by the public. city was appellant, and two cases are The United States Circuit Court, in still pending
the case instituted by the Co-operative Eight hundred and sixty-one (861) Grease and Soap Company to restrain warrants, in which there is a total de- the Commissioner of Health from interficiency of $431,016.66, have been ex- fering with its rendering plant, decided amined. for the purpose of ascertaining that a court of equity would not inthe cause of such deficiency. A report terfere with municipal officers in the enas to these warrants is now in the forcement of health provisions of the course of preparation, together with a city ordinances where it appeared that recommendation to what
the complainants were violating certain should be pursued in regard to each provisions thereof. Warrant.
Similar suits brought by Stern & Thirty-seven (37) formal opinions Company in the Circuit and Superior have been prepared for the Board of Courts of Cook County and involving Local Improvements.
the same plant were decided in favor The office of Prosecuting Attorney,
of the city. For a number of years the conducted under the supervision of the property owners and residents in the Corporation Counsel, represents the city
vicinity of this plant had been objecting in criminal and quasi criminal actions to its maintenance, and it was only for violations of city ordinances and in after hard-fought litigation that the civil actions for the recovery of penal- | city succeeded in terminating its exties for violations of city ordinances.
istence. The city is also represented in the Ju- In the case of Spiegler et al. vs. City