|
De~emoer 27, 1928
<br />
<br />Oon~'&nEent for Repairs to Boatsl Terminals, Docks and Plant ....... ....... . .... . $15,000·
<br /> ew Boat xp nse ....... i .... . .. ' · :; ..... ;' '
<br /> 8',75o.
<br />Amortization ..................................................................... .50,000
<br />Depreciation ..................................................................... 30~000.
<br />
<br /> $465 730
<br />To ; .......................................................................... ~ .
<br />
<br />On motion of Ere White, the Ferry Budget Ordinance was adopted, Mud by the following Tote:
<br />
<br />Ayes-- Brooks, Maupin, Eayo, Oast, Stewart, White,
<br />
<br />January 8, 1929·
<br />
<br />-_Ate regular meeting of the City Council held January 8th,at 8 p. m.,there were
<br />
<br />present:
<br />
<br />Eessrs-- Vernon Brooks, J. C. Dunford, E.W. Maupin,
<br /> J. Alden Oast, L. G. White,
<br /> Also the City Manager.
<br />
<br />The minutes,of the postponed regular meeting December 27th were read.-and were approved·
<br />
<br /> The following communication from. the. City.Manager; which had:been laid on the table until
<br />this meeting, was taken up and read: .
<br /> "Attached you will find statement of facts in reference
<br />to petition of Annie Kline for relief Of interest and penalties on 1926 and 192~ taxes on
<br />property assessed as lot 16 block 13, 712 Lincoln St., ascertained by¢Oity Attorney, R. C~
<br />Barclay.
<br />
<br /> I have been informed at the tax office that proper noti.ce had been given in regard to this
<br />tax both through the mail. and in person. I also know it to be a fact that during the-many
<br />years I was in 2he tax office, I~found it almost impossible to have the land.or.tax.books
<br />exactly accurate as to lot¥ block or house numbers, and in the past that has never in any way
<br />excused a person from penalty after he had. been notified that his taxes were due. I believe
<br />it would be a bad precedent to gre~t this petition and therefore recommend that it not be
<br />granted."
<br />
<br />Dr. Dunford moved that the recommendation of the Manager be not concurred in.
<br />The motion was lost, and by the following vote:
<br /> Ayes~.Dunford, 0est, 2.
<br /> Nays~ Brooks, Maupin, White,
<br />
<br /> The.folloMing communications were read from the City-~anager:
<br /> let. "Attached you will
<br />find bill ~f.E~. Tom E. Gilman in the amount off $75.00¢ handed me by Police officers James
<br />Randolph and-A, J. Flowers, for attorney's fee in defending these officers in the suit of Ers.
<br />R. H. Emery, charging false arrest.
<br />
<br /> The case was tried on October 16th, 1928, and the officers were acquitted of the charge,
<br />the Court finding that they were properly performing their duty. I have investigated the matter
<br />thoroughly and ~ind that the officers were carrying out theirduty in proper manner .and I there-
<br />fore recommend that the City pay this bill. The attached statement contains facts in the case,
<br />as presented by the office~s. This case is similar to the one in which the Council made pay-
<br />ment of a bill of $~5.00 in defense of suit of officers 8nyder, Dunn and Whi~more, in the case
<br />of a Er. Bowen against them. These officers were also exonerated.
<br />
<br /> I feel that ~hen officers are sued in connection with the performance of th~ir:.ddty and.
<br />and the Court 2.enders a decision in their favor deciding that the officers-were conducting
<br />themselves properly and carrying out the law in making arrests~ they should not be-called
<br />upon to pay attorney's fees from their salaries." --
<br />
<br /> On motion of Er~ ~nite, the recommendation of the-Manager-was concurred in, and a special
<br />appropriation of $75.00 allo~ed to-pay said bill, and by ~he. folloWing vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes-- Brooks, Dunford, Maupin, Oast, ~nite,
<br />
<br /> 2nd. Recommended adoption of the following resolution:
<br /> "Whereas, The Virginia Electric
<br />and Power Company enteredinto a certain contract with the City of Portsmouth bearing date
<br />on the 30th day of July, 1928~ whereby it agreed to pay unto the City the-sum of $71,000for
<br />the re-paving of certain streets in the city to be disturbed upon the removal of the tracks
<br />of said company, which s'ctm is to be paid upon monthly esrimates as the work progresses.
<br />
<br />And Whereas. the City has contracted-with one F. J. McGuire to perform certain portions
<br />
<br />
<br />
|