|
At a regular meeting of the 0ity 0ounoil held Nove~oer ipta, 193 , at 8:00
<br />there were present:
<br />
<br /> Vernon A. Brooks, LeSlie T. Fox, W.R. Hutchins, S.B. Score, J. Alden 0ast,
<br /> H. F. parrish, J.R. Stewart, 0ity }~anager.
<br />
<br /> Einutes of regular meeting held October 23rd, were read and approved.
<br />
<br /> The Co~:ittee appointed to present resolution of respect on the death of Er.
<br />~alter Eathews, reports as followS:
<br />
<br /> "The Council of the City of Portsmouth expresses its deep Sense of loss and
<br />personal sorrow in the death of ~heir friend and fellow-citizen, T. ~alter Eathews, which
<br />occurred at his residence, Portsmouth, Virginia, on October 6th, 19~. ~
<br /> At the rime'of his death~ ~r. Eathews was a member ox the ~chool Board of
<br />Port~m0uth, also serving as Vice President, where his ~autiring efforts for the betterment of
<br />the p~lic schools will be felt for generations'to come.
<br /> ~. Eathews was a man of sterling character and in his death Portsmouth has
<br />lost a most worthy citizen and one whose every d6y life will be an example to all who knew
<br />him.
<br /> THEB~FORE BE IT RESOLVED, That these resolutions be made a part of the minutes
<br />of the Council of the City oi Portsmouth and that a copy be se~t the bereaved family.
<br />
<br />Respectfully,
<br />
<br />Leslie T. Fox
<br />Hugh F. Parrish,
<br /> 0 o~r~.l t ~ee ~
<br />
<br /> ' ~ the resolution was adopted.-
<br />On motion' of Mr. Hu~ch~ns,
<br />
<br />The following communioatior~from the Oity l~anager w~eread:
<br />
<br /> tst -~I am attaching copy of letter from Mr. C.S. Nuilen, Chief Engineer, Depart-
<br />ment of Highways, dated October 30th, 193~] re~rding the proposed reconstruction of pavement
<br />on High St. between 0raWford and ~hestnut Sts.
<br /> In view of the advice that this work can not be done within the amount allo-
<br />cated, of $30,000.00, I suggest that we request the Highway Department to eliminate the block
<br />between Crawford and Eiddle Sts., from the project and advertise the balance as originally re-
<br />quested, with the understanding that the City will then consider paying any cost above the
<br />amount allocated."
<br />
<br />Motion o£ Er. Hutchins to concu~ in the Ea~ager~s reoo~aendation, w as adopted.
<br />
<br /> 2nd -~Wat.er accounts amounting to $292.80, for water f'~rnished families on request
<br />of the Emergency Relief Office for quarter ended Sect. 3Oth, 1934, are being written off in
<br />Nove~oer 1934 accounts."
<br />
<br />On motion ordered filed.
<br />
<br /> 3~d -"The various bus lines operating in the 0ity and Mr. G.~. Eaupin, have depos-
<br />ited the $750.00 which they agreed to pay to cover the cost of remo]ming four feet of sidewalk
<br />on the west side of Crawford St., between High ~ud Queen Sts.
<br /> This work is now underway and should be furnished in the next week or ten
<br />days. It is requested that the $~50.00 deposited be apprbp~iated and I be authorized to use
<br />this ~mount to pay for this work."
<br />
<br /> Eotion of Er. Fox to oonou~ in the Eanager's recommendation and to appropriate
<br />$750.00 for same, was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Brooks, Fox, HutohinS, Score, Oast, Parrish, Stewart
<br />Nays: None.
<br />
<br />The following communication from the City Attorney was read:
<br />
<br /> "In reference to the bill of Er. Robert F. McEurran re£erred to me at your
<br />last meeting, ~ find that owing to the illness of Mr. Lloyd E. Warren, the 0o~monwealth Attor-
<br />ney, that~Er. ~c~ur~an was ~ppointed b~ the, Judge~of the 0our~ ~f Husti~g~ for the City of
<br />Portsmouth, as S~ecmal Prosecutor. Section ~970 ox the State ~oae provime~ for the appointment
<br />of Soecial Prosecuting Attorneys in cases where it is improper or impossible for the 0ommon -
<br />wealth Attorney to act, ar~ provides that he shall have all the powers and privileges of the
<br />regular Commonwealth Attorney and shall receive the same compensation. Under Section 3505 the
<br />fees of the 0ommonwealth Attorney were fixed, but provided he should not receive from the State
<br />more then $1500. in any year. Under the Act of Earoh 29, 193~ (Acts 1934-page 733) the fee
<br />system for the Oommonwealth Attorney was abolished and he was placed on ~ salary basis, one
<br />half to be paid by the State and one half by the City. The Act did not speci£ioally repeal
<br />section 3505 but did so only ineofar as the two acts wera inconsistent. The Attorney General
<br />has then held that the fees allowed by Section 3505 are still in force as to Soeoial Prosecut-
<br />ing Attorneys. The Act of 1934 made no provision for the oomp~nsatmon of an Ac~ing 0ommonwealth
<br />Attorney, and cases will undoubtedly arise where the Special Prosecuting Attorney is appointed
<br />~or one single case. The Attorney General had this in mind when he made his ruling as he fur-
<br />nished ~ copy of an opinion where ~he question arose in Tazewell County. Taking the various
<br />phases of the matter into consimeration and the various statutes it aopears that the special
<br />Prosecutor is a~lowed the fees set forth in Section 3505, which are in accordance with the bill
<br />
<br />
<br />
|