USA > Massachusetts > Norfolk County > Quincy > Inaugural address of the mayor, with the annual report of the officers of the city of Quincy for the year 1904 > Part 18
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24
Shortle, Thomas H., 23 Common st., stonecutter. Scammell, Charles H., 1 Glencoe pl., wheelwright .. Shepard, George N., 18 River st., wood engraver. Sweeney, George M., 81 Mill st., laborer.
Souden, Alexander, 317 Water st., polisher.
Souter, Alexander, 44 Taber st., stonecutter. Sherman, Charles R., 8 Park st., dry goods. Sheldon, Edward J., 123 Winthrop ave., retired. Sheldon, Charles P., 123 Winthrop ave., clerk. Stevens, Harry C., 474 Hancock st., machinist. Shirley, Alexander, 6 Filbert st. stonecutter. Swain, Stephen N., 62 Phipps st., shoemaker. Sweeney, Michael, 31 Main st., bootmaker. Swingle, Jonathan S., 1262 Hancock st., contractor. Smith, Frederick H., 701 Washington st., real estate. Sullivan, John J., 99 S. Walnut st., rivet maker. Scharnagel, Robert, Prospect st., chemist. Shepherd, George, 18 River st., shoemaker. Sullivan, James H., 21 Quincy ave., stonecutter.
362
Sprague, Eugene H., 210 Arlington st., provisions. Totman, Henry S., 96 Chubbuck st., provision dealer. Tower, Charles H., 182 E. Howard st., upholsterer. Tilton, Charles B., 24 Merry Mt. rd., salesman. Tite, John, 226 Liberty st. extension, stonecutter. Thomas, James, 120 Beach st., machinist. Thorpe, Elwyn R., Lunt st., door maker.
Turner, A. Lincoln, 459 Hancock st., carriage manufacturer.
Trask, Edward V., 2 Willard st., wood dealer. Thayer, Otis, 90 Copeland st., blacksmith. Thomas, Herbert, Moscow st., machinist.
Taylor, George P., 82 River st., machinist.
Vogel, Adam S., 74 Willard st., real estate.
Vogel, John, 65 Willard st., granite. Walsh, William J., 54 Putman st., conductor. Walsh, John W., 158 Quincy ave., salesman. Wild, Frank M., 127 Granite st., granite dealer. Woodward, Washington G., 10 Billings st., steam fitter. West, Charles F., Adams st., machinist. Webb, James H. 213 Washington st., janitor. Whiton, Joseph L. jr., 700 Washington st., boot and shoe. Welsh, Morris, Rawson rd., machinist. Wilson, Stephen E., 1126 Hancock st., real estate. Welch, John H., 83 Botolph st., druggist. Williams, Albert J., 207 Liberty st., clerk. Westland, George T., 8 Cottage st., clerk.
1
363
IReport of City Solicitor
To his Honor, the Mayor of Quincy.
SIR :- In relation to the legal affairs of the city placed in my charge as City Solicitor, I beg leave to report the following facts :
There was omitted from my report of last year by mistake mention of the case of Henry H. Savage vs. City of Quincy. This was a petition brought some years ago to recover damages for the taking of land for the extension of a street in Wollas- ton. The suit was lost sight of as the plaintiff had not put it upon the trial list for several years. The city declined to make any adjustment, believing that the benefits to the remaining property were greater than the damages sustained to the peti- tioner by the land taken for the highway, and I had prepared to try the case before I left office.
There was also a case which had been pending before the County Commissioners for some years, that of H. E. Fay. This was for damages in relation to the construction of a sewer and was settled by the Quincy Sewerage Commissioners them- selves just before going out of office. The settlement was a satisfactory one.
The situation of those cases referred to in my report of last year is as follows :
The case of the First Congregational Society of Quincy vs. City of Quincy is still pending. It would have been tried last October had it not been for the illness of Mr. Jenness who was counsel for the society. Since then Mr. Jenness has died.
364
The case ought to be tried at an early date that we may be cer- tain to avail ourselves of the testimony of one or two promi- nent citizens of advanced age whose evidence will be of great. importance to the city in this case.
The suit of Florence Locke vs. the City of Quincy is still pending.
The case of Paul H. McIntyre vs. the City of Quincy is await- ing the determination of a like suit brought by the same plain- tiff against the contractors employed by the Metropolitan Sew- erage Commission. The verdict in the Superior Court was for the defendant and the plaintiff is now before the Supreme Judicial Court on exceptions. The plaintiff claims that the accident was. occasioned by a defect in a way known as Island ave., at Houghs. Neck, which defect was the result of work being done by the. Metropolitan Sewerage Commissioners. In the event of a trial against the City of Quincy, the defense of this suit is to be as- sumed by the Commonwealth.
The case of Willard S. Ford vs. the City of Quincy was adjusted by the Mayor.
The suits of James P. King and Annie M. Bates vs. City of Quincy are both pending and both were prepared by me for trial, and the city was in readiness for trial, when I left office.
The case of Zachariah Farella vs. City of Quincy is pend- ing in Suffolk County. It is an action for damages relating to injuries sustamed by a workman who was building a sewer and in the employ of the City of Quincy.
The city has no interest in the suit of Eric G. Bergford, the defense being assumed by the co-defendant.
The suit of Patrick Cain vs. City of Quincy was brought in the District Court of East Norfolk for damages sustained to Mr. Cain's carriage on November 13th by reason of coming in contact with a guy rope stretched across Liberty street, a pub- lic highway, and maintained by the Merrymount Granite Co. Notice was given the Merrymount Granite Co. Jan. 25th to de- fend the suit. Counsel for that company appeared and defend- ed the case and judgment was rendered for $100 against the city. This sum was paid by the City of Quincy. Under the law,
365
recovery of the amount and expenses can certainly be obtained from the Merrymount Granite Co. and suit should be brought against the company at once to recover said judgment and costs.
The case of William H. Willett vs. City of Quincy is still pending. During the last year another suit has been brought for the same cause of action by Mrs. Willett. This action arises out of an accident to Mrs. Willett December 8, 1903, by reason of her falling on snow and ice on the sidewalk on Frank- lin street. The notice sets forth the claim that there was a de- fect in the sidewalk, on the southeasterly side thereof, at a . point ten feet northwesterly from the corner of Franklin and Verchild streets, said defect consisting of an uneven and deep depression in the middle of said sidewalk, and that by reason of this defect Mrs. Willett slipped on an accumulation of snow and ice and was injured. The suit was ready for trial when I left office. So far as the action of Mr. Willett is concerned, it is my opinion that there can be no recovery as a matter of law, the husband of a wife having no right of action against the city in such a suit.
In the case of Joseph Silva vs. City of Quincy, pending in the Superior Court in Suffolk, I filed a demurrer asking the court to dismiss the action because of manifest errors dis- closed in the plaintiff's declaration which showed that the plain - tiff had no cause of action against the city. This is an action brought by Silva against the City of Quincy and the Chief of the Police Department jointly for alleged assault and battery and false imprisonment. The demurrer has since been argued by me and sustained by the court.
The suit of Alfred H. Hook vs. City of Quincy was trans- ferred to Norfolk County at my request, the case having been improperly brought in Suffolk County. This is an action ibrought to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of falling into a .sewer trench which the city was excavating in making a con- nection with the building known as the old car stables in City Square.
366
The suit of William Hanrahan vs. City of Quincy is also pending in the Superior Court at Dedham. In this action the plaintiff claims damages against Quincy because his buildings at Houghs Neck burned down and alleges that the cause of the same was owing to negligence of the Fire Department and the city is not maintaining a properly equipped fire department in that district. In my opinion, the plaintiff has no cause of ac- tion at law in this case.
On behalf of the Poor Department I commenced proceed- ings against the guardian of Martha Hardwick to recover money paid by the city for her support as an insane person, and I se- cured a settlement satisfactory to the Overseer of the Poor of the City of Quincy and the money has since been paid into the city treasury.
An action brought against the city on behalf of Mary Coyle who received injuries to her ankle by reason of a defect in one of the streets in Wollaston has been settled satisfactorily.
Suit has been brought against the city by Julia Foley for injuries received as the result of an accident which happened to her February 12, 1904, while riding in a sleigh on Hancock street near the store of Mr. George L. York. Mrs. Foley claims that the accident was occasioned by a high ridge of snow and ice left in the street. This case is now pending be- fore the Superior Court at Dedham.
In my last report reference was made to a suit pending against the town of Weymouth brought by me on behalf of the City of Quincy to recover certain sums of money paid out by the Poor Department in giving aid to a person who it was claimed had a legal settlement in Weymouth. Just before I left office, an agreement was made between myself and counsel for Weymouth by which Weymouth was to pay to Quincy the amount sued for.
During the last year preparation was perfected for begin- ning suit against the City of Boston to recover back taxes on land owned by the City of Boston at Squantum. This land was purchased at Squantum Head and a part of it used for sewer purposes. There is considerable of this area, however,,
367
not actually used for sewer purposes by the City of Boston, and after examination of the law and the facts relating to this case, I came to the conclusion that the taxes assessed against Boston could be recovered. Considerable work had to be done in pre- paring this case and the plans and papers relating to the same are now in such shape that suit may be brought without further delay. If the court decides in our favor, there is a large amount of back taxes which may be recovered from the City of Boston.
On February 1, 1900, during Mr. Sears' term of office, suit was commenced in Essex County against the City of Quincy on behalf of John Sheehan and Son. This action grew out of a contract entered into between the Sewerage Com- missioners on behalf of the City of Quincy and Mr. Sheehan's firm for services in constructing what is known as section No. 3 of the Quincy Sewerage System, being the section beginning at the pumping station and ending at the corner of Woodbine and Hancock streets. Mr. Sheehan claimed that because of inter- ference with his work on the part of the city's representatives he was greatly damaged and lost a large sum of money. He further claimed that he was not paid for all the materials and labor which he furnished, in consequence of which the city owed him something like $15,000 and interest, amounting in all to about $18,000. This case was first tried before Mr. Buckminster, an auditor, whose duty it was to examine the contract and go over the accounts. He decided against Mr. Sheehan's contention and made a finding in favor of the plain- tiffs amounting to about two thousand dollars. Mr. Sheehan was dissatisfied with this and asked for a jury trial at Salem. Before I came into the suit, the Sewerage Commissioners had authorized the employment of Mr. Henry F. Hurlburt, one of the leaders of the Essex County Bar, to assist counsel for the city in the trial of this case. Efforts had been made by me to have this case tried, but owing to the fact that the plaintiffs had changed counsel once or twice and also to the fact that counsel engaged on both sides were very busy men, I was not able to bring this about until January of this year. The trial of the
368
case, occupying something like two weeks, was ended in Feb- ruary and resulted in a verdict against the city of $8,621.51. At the time the verdict was returned to court I was present and asked to have the jury interrogated as to how they found on certain classes of items sought to be recovered by the plaintiffs. The foreman of the jury thereupon returned to court a paper setting forth in detail how the verdict was made up. Upon examining said paper, I was satisfied the jury had made an error in computation of nearly three thousand dollars in favor of the plaintiffs. A motion for a new trial was filed by me and later argued, resulting in an order by the court to reduce the verdict to the sum of $5,649.51. If the plaintiffs decline to accept this amount, there is to be a new trial of the case. The plaintiffs have not as yet made their election.
During the early part of the year the Boston Elevated Railway Company and the Old Colony Street Railway Com- pany petitioned the Railroad Commissioners for permission to connect the tracks of the two companies on Hancock street at Neponset and asked for authority to cross the tracks of the Shawmut Branch of the New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. In response to the request of the companies, Mayor Bryant appeared in behalf of the city and urged the Railroad Commissioners to grant permission to the street railway com- panies to do this, though it was against the protest of the New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. Mayor Bryant acted in this matter upon the assurance of the officials of both street railway companies that they would, upon receiving permission to cross the railroad tracks, make connection between the two systems of street railway and run through cars on Hancock street from Quincy Centre to Dudley street in Boston. 'The petition of the street railway companies was granted by the Railroad Commis- sioners. The tracks were laid, but the through cars have not been forthcoming. After extended correspondence between the parties, conferences were had between Mayor Bryant and my- self and the Railroad Commissioners, at which representatives of the street railway companies were present. This was long after the tracks were laid, and though it was admitted by the street
369
railway companies' representatives that they had promised the Mayor to give Quincy through cars to Boston as above stated, yet they declined to carry out the agreement or to give any reason for their failure to do so. The Railroad Commissioners felt that they had no authority in the premises to make any order compelling the railway companies to live up to their agreement but stated in the presence of the Mayor and myself that they had a distinct recollection of the promise made by the street railway companies to run through cars from Quincy to Boston and that such promise was made at the time of the hearing when authority was asked to make connection of the tracks. I would respectfully advise that unless the Old Colony Street Railway Company lives up to its agreement with the City of Quincy, no franchise or other valuable right be granted to said company by the Mayor and City Council until it either has carried out its agreement entered into with Mayor Bryant or shows some good reason why it cannot perform its part of the same.
During the years in which I have been City Solicitor I have been constantly endeavoring to obtain for Quincy better train service. We have also had other grievances against the steam railroad company which I have sought to have adjusted. In November, therefore, of last year the Solicitor entered a complaint with the Railroad Commissioners concerning these different matters, which resulted in several conferences and in- terviews with the parties in interest. At the suggestion of the Railroad Commissioners, I formulated in writing a list of re- quests, on behalf of the city, which was conveyed to the offi- cials of the New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. by the Railroad Commissioners. Later a conference was arranged at the rooms of the Railroad Commissioners between Mr. Byrnes, representing the president of the railroad company, and myself. At this conference Mr. Thomas, who was to be my suc- cessor, was invited by me to be present that he might take up the matter and see that the agreements entered into between the railroad company and the city were carried out after I left office. As a result of this conference
370
a later conference was had at the office of Mr. Byrnes, at. which substantially all the requests I had made were com- plied with by the railroad company.
Probably the most important matter in charge of the City Solicitor during the past year related to the apportionment of the cost and maintenance of the Fore River bridge at Quincy Point upon such cities, town and quasi-public corporations as were found to be specially benefited thereby. The bridge was accepted by the County Commissioners of Norfolk County sometime in October 1903. The cost of the same for construc- tion was $96,427.15. . In addition to that there were charges re- lating to loans and interest to July 1, 1904, amounting to $7,419- 52, making the total expense as shown by the report of the Commissioners to the Superior Court, $103,846,67. There will be in addition the interest charges to the date of the award and also the costs of the hearings, including the Commissioners" fees and reports of the stenographer. The Commissioners ap- pointed by the Superior Court gave many hearings at which representatives from about thirty municipalities and corpora- tions appeared from time to time, and as solicitor I spent about. forty days in all upon the preparation and trial of this case.
Under Section 3 of Chapter 456 of the Acts of 1900 it was provided that the County Commissioners should file their re- port, together with the amount of the cost of the undertaking, and the Superior Court should then appoint a board of three commisssioners, who should hear all parties interested and should proceed to assess the amount then paid out by the County of Norfolk, including interest paid on moneys borrowed under the authority of the act, upon such cities, towns and quasi-public corporations as they should award and determine to- be specially benefited by such bridge, and in such amounts as they should award and determine to be fairly proportionate to the special benefits conferred by said bridge upon the cities, towns and corporations so assessed. By a subsequent act in amendment of this act the Commissioners were allowed to consider whether or not the County of Nor- folk, as a county, was specially benefited by the construction
371
of this bridge, and if so, what special benefit, if any, accrued, and what proportion it should pay with the cities, towns and quasi-public corporations also found to be benefited.
Under this statute Hon. Henry P. Moulton of Salem, John J. Flaherty, Esq., of Gloucester, and E. H. Vaughn, Esq., of Worcester, were appointed the three commissioners to perform the duties hereinbefore set forth. Sometime in July last, after hear- ings covering several weeks, during which time a large number of witnesses were examined and elaborate arguments made by counsel representing the different municipalities and corpora- tions claimed to be specially benefited, the case was taken under advisement by the board of commissioners. Before any report was signed, however, although we are informed the three commissioners had substantially agreed upon a find- ing, the chairman, Mr. Moulton, died.
Under this statute it would appear that it is necessary to have a finding of three commissioners before any award can legally be made and collected against the parties determined to be benefited at a meeting of all parties who had ap- peared before the Commission together with the surviving members of the Commission held on December 16th last, it was. decided to ask the Superior Court to appoint another commis- sioner for the purpose of taking such additional testimony or hearing such other persons as cared to be heard upon this question. In pursuance of this agreement, Hon. Prescott Keyes of Concord, was appointed to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Mr. Moulton, and at a hearing at which all the parties interested were present, it was decided not to have a rehearing but to permit Judge Keyes to take a view of the bridge, read the evidence and arguments of counsel which had been previously taken by a stenographer, and then meet with the other two commissioners to determine the proportion which each city and town benefited, should pay. My successor, Mr. Thomas, representing the city of Quincy at this hearing, in- formed the commission that he was content, so far as Quincy was concerned, to leave the case as it had been argued by me. The statute provides that the cities, towns and corpora-
372
tions so assessed by the commission as above set forth, within such time and in such manner as said commissioners shall de- termine, shall pay into the treasury of the County of Norfolk the amount assessed upon them with interest. Section 4 pro- vides that such award and determination of the commissioners wben reported in writing to the Superior Court for the County of Norfolk, and upon acceptance by said court, shall be binding upon all'parties named therein, and such proceedings may he had upon such judgment or decree, to enforce and carry into effect the same and the provisions of this act, as are provided by law in civil cases in said Superior Court.
It therefore appears that as soon as the Commissioners make their final award, and said award is accepted by the Supe- rior Court, it will have the legal effect and force of a judgment against the City of Quincy. There is no claim, of course, that Quincy is not benefited by the construction of this bridge. It would obviously be inappropriate for me to suggest in anticipa- tion of the finding of the Commissioners what, in my opinion, that amount will be. Based upon the evidence in the case, it will unquestionably be a substantial amount, and the question for the city to determine is how Quincy will provide for the payment of this award when it is made.
As counsel for the city, I am not satisfied with the word- ing of the act and believe that had the act been broader in its scope a part of the cost of this construction which will un- doubtedly fall upon the parties adjudged to be benefited might properly have been assessed upon and paid by the Common- wealth of Massachusetts, and I believe that the Commissioners would willingly have apportioned some part of the cost upon the Commonwealth had they been permitted to do so by the act. In case, therefore, the award is unsatisfactory, it is my opinion that efforts should be made to have the Legislature at its next session supplement this act by an act providing for a contribution by the State as the evidence before the Commis- sioners disclosed the fact, beyond a doubt, that the State, as such, was specially benefited by the construction of this bridge. If the report of the Speciol Commission goes to the Supreme
373
Judicial Court on questions of law which have arisen during the hearings, there probably will be ample time to ask for this legislation before the Supreme Judicial Court finally disposes of the legal questions involved. If Quincy, however, is com- pelled to pay during the pear 1905 its proportion of the cost of construction as found by the present board of commissioners, the money can be provided in either one of two ways; it can be put into the general tax levy or it can be paid by borrowing money upon notes or bonds of the city to fall due within ten years of the incurring of the indebtedness, providing the total amount which the city attempts to borrow does not exceed, to- gether with the indebtedness which we then owe, the limit of our borrowing capacity.
In my report of last year I referred to the bills passed by the legislature providing an appropriation to enable the Metro- politan Park Commissioners to construct the Quincy shore Reservation and Furnace Brook Parkway. This legislation was the result of bills drawn by me as City Solicitor and in- troduced into the Legislature at the request of Mayor Bryant. The Metropolitan Park Commission, after the appropriation was made, gave a hearing to Mayor Bryant and myself as repre- senting the city, at the conclusion of which assurances were made to us by the Chairman of the Board that work on the parkway and the reservation would be begun at once, and annually there would be set aside for this purpose a part of this appropriation, and that work would be eontinued on the reser- vation and the parkway until the same were completed or as long as the money lasted. Since that time construction has been begun upon both the Quincy Shore Reserv ation and the Furnace Brook Parkway.
There was also reference in my report of last year to the matter of the widening of the bridge over the railroad at Han- cock street near Atlantic. At that time the Special Commis- sion had not reported its finding. The report has since been received and the assessments made were as follows:
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.