|
2'63
<br />
<br />December 27, 1923
<br />
<br />taken up, read, and on motion of Mr. Stewart (J.R.) adopted:
<br />
<br /> AN 0RDINAI~CE ~NDING SECTION IO OF "~H ORDINANCE FIXING TERMS OF CONSENT FOR THE 0P~ATION
<br />OF AUTOBUSSES IN THE CI~ OF PORTS~OUTH."
<br />
<br />And by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes-- Brooke, Hutchins,
<br /> Stewart (R.E.B.)~ White,
<br />Nays-- 0ast,
<br />
<br />Stewart
<br />
<br /> The following ordinance which had been placed on first reading December llth, w~s taken
<br />up and read:
<br /> An 0rdins. nce Providing for the Numbering or ReJntE%bering cf Houses, Apartments,
<br />Tenements, Business Buildings, Factories and other St~ctures Now Erected or Which Hereafter
<br />May be Erected in the City of Portsmouth;
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Brooks, the ordinance was referred back te the City~an~ger for further
<br />information. ~r, 0asr voting No.
<br />
<br /> On motion of~. Brooks, action wac deferred on the following ordinance, which had been
<br />placed o$ first re~ding Esvember 2~th, until the next regular meeting of Council:
<br />
<br /> AN Ordinance Amending "An Ordinance 'Whose SI~o~ TITLE SHALL B~ 'THE' P~I~G 0EDINANOE'
<br />REGULf'~TI~G THE P~LRKING OF VEHICLES IN T~ ST~TS OF THE CITY OF PORTS~UTH, VA., PRESCRIBING
<br />PENALTIES FOR Vt0I~TION THEP~EOF AND P~PEALING ALL 0~INA~CES OR PA~RTS 0_w 0PJ)IN~NCES IN CONFLICT
<br />TEEP~E~ITt~."
<br />
<br />Eon. City Ceunci!,
<br /> Portsmouth, Vm.
<br />
<br />"Port~outh,
<br />
<br />Va., December 27, 1923.
<br />
<br /> Gent!omen:
<br /> There is pending in the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth a suit brsugh%
<br />byers. Eunice L. Jenkins ~gainst ~e City of Portsmouth s~ud 0sclc Dashiell and Cempany,
<br />Contractors, for $25,000 dsm~ges for injuries sustained by her slipping on the sidewalk las~
<br />~yat the corner of Cooke and Vill~ Streets during the construction of the West Park View
<br /> sewers. Th~ case was tried on December l~h a~d resulted in a hung Jury. While the evidence
<br /> was conflicting the~general opinion was t.hat this corner was made slippery by w~ter being
<br /> splashed upon the s'idew~lk by passing vehicles, the City having required Dashiell and Company
<br /> tq keep the street epen at this point. Simce the trial~i Jenkins, through her a~torneys,
<br /> has offered to accept $1500 in~pompro~ise of t~e c~se, she agreeing to ~y the couI~costs. ~Lr.
<br /> D~shi~elI !~s stated to me third, the Compromise is acceptable to the City he will pay one h~lf
<br /> o~ that ~mount. ~!e there i~some question ofthe'de~end~nts' liability in the case yet two
<br /> views~mjy-b~ Imken from the evidence, and should t~ke a ~i~wunfavorable to the City it is
<br /> prGbabl~ that the d~Eages givenwoul~ be much in excess of the above amc~ut and the jury
<br /> would have the right to say whether the City er DaShiell and Cempany is primarily liable~
<br /> and i would ~advise that the offer of $1~00 De accepted, I therefore request, if ~om see fit
<br /> to mccept ~ ~ompr0mise, to ms~ke the s~m of $750 available fer this purpose atonce?
<br />
<br />R. C. BARCI~.Y,
<br /> City Attorney~~
<br />
<br /> ~r. Broo~s moved that the recommendation of the City-Attorney be concurred in and that ~50.
<br />~pecial appropriation of ~$?§0. be allowed for the City's ~s~rt of same.
<br /> The motion ~s adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes-- Brooks, Hutchins, Oast, Smith, Stewart (J.R.),
<br /> Ste\vart (R.E.B.), White,
<br />
<br />The fol!owLRg communi~atien~was read from the City Attorney:
<br />
<br />Honorable City Co~tl,
<br /> Pertsmouth,.*Ja.
<br />
<br />"December ~, 192~
<br />
<br />De~r Sir:
<br /> ~ I am enclosing herewith copies of two crders~ich the State Corporation CoEmissien
<br />entered on the 14th day of December, 1923, in the petitions filed by'the Virginia R~ilway and
<br />Power Company, first, 'for the abandonment cf the County Street Line? and second 'to be re-
<br />lieved cf their p~ving.oblig~tio~sin the City of Portsmouth,, The Corperatien Commission
<br />in both eas~s decided the case s adverseiy'~o the City cf Portsmouth. It permitted the mbandon-
<br />men~ef the Coun~.Street Linc'and requi~ed the Virginia Railway and'Power Company to remove
<br />its tracks from C~unty, Gedwin~ and Cel~mbim Streets and Sixth Ave~ and restore the streets
<br />disturbed~y such removal, It also relieved the Company of paving in the City untiI such
<br />as it shall ap~em~ that the :~arnil~gs of the Portsmouth-~ivmsmen oz the Company justify the
<br />expenditures. Th8 city-has-the righl of appeal from these decisions to the Supreme Court of
<br />Appeals of the State and as these eases, particularly the paving-case mean a great deal to
<br />the City and i~volve very important legal princip~e~, I would advise that an ~peal be t~ken.
<br />
<br /> ~o ThE Virginia Railway and Power Compa~y!~s given notice that the County Street service
<br />will ~ dis~ontinned January let. In order that this may net be done it will be necessary
<br />for the city to gl~e~a bend to cever a~y losses the comply may sustain which I do not believe
<br />is advisable.
<br /> Yo~rs wry truty~
<br />
<br />R. C. B~rclay, City Attorney."
<br />
<br />
<br />
|