Clipped From The Cincinnati Enquirer

tjadams626 Member Photo

Clipped by tjadams626

 - SILIPLY Grabb3d the City Hall And Pat It la His...
SILIPLY Grabb3d the City Hall And Pat It la His Legal Packet,; DM Brtek. Ualqae Way of Satisf'izt; a Jdrt Af alaat the Xuieipalitj Laried Upoi LowaiaB'a FBraitira. By at a refer-enaea entry forever." ha am the was who Attorney August W. Brack mow holds the disinctio of being- the first attorney to take possession of a City Building or its contents to satisfy a Judgment against the ! city, likewise Deputy Sheriff John Prae tor holds the Distinction of being the first ' official to make such a levy. The execution was levied yesterday morning to sat isfy a Judgment secured by Mr. Louisa ! Kuha against the dty for damages to bar property In 1908. as forecast in Tms TJl- Qcrasa yesterday. The execution Issued wag upon a Jodg- m.nt tnr 1 OS. ahlrh waa muavtlenad and in a case where no appeal bond bad been filed by the city, although the City Solicitor was preparing to carry the case to the Supreme Court. Yesterday morning Deputy Sheriff Proctor went to the City Hall, and at once levied apoa and took possession of all the furniture in the otBce of City Solicitor Jesse Low man. a TBK-imrcTa arsnca. When It was seen that Mr. Brack meant business and that the execution was genuine there was a scurrying to put in a supersedeas bond, and this was quickly pro vided for by the National Surety Company qualifying for $7,117 Sd to cover the bond required. In connection with Judgment and the levying of the execution Attorney Brack, for Mrs. Kuhn. sent the following letter to the Board of Sinking Fund Trustees, explaining the matter to them: . ' "Gentlemen: In the October term of the Common Pleas Court we obtained a Judgment against the city for the negligent destruction of Mrs. Louisa Kuhn's house on McMlcken avenue. ' "The City Solicitor took the ease to the Circuit Court, and upon the bearing thereof the- Solicitor in an argument of not more than 10 minutes, did not cite one single authority In support of the petition In error, and upon the conclusion of the Solicitor s argument the Circuit Court stated to counsel for ths defendant that no answer to the Solicitor waa necessary. And no brief or memoranda of authorities was filed by the Solicitor, and In June of this year the Circuit Court affirmed the Judgment on every single error Talsed by the Solicitor and assessed a penalty of S per cent because there existed no ground for review and that the petition waa frivolous. SHOTS TUB BUnSBIf. "We agreed to remit the penalty because we thought from the statement of one of the assistants that the city would pay the Judgment and not delay the Judgment fur ther. Now the Solicitor la filing a petition In the Supreme Court where a penalty la Inevitable. "The Interest on this Judgment, together with the expense of the review and the penalty In this case, will amount to more than 80 per cent additional to the Judg ment. Now the Solicitor puts the burden of taking these cases up on the Sinking Fund Commissioners, which we know la not true. Would any lawyer put his client to such an expense, 30 per cent additional. If that client was 'any one other than the City of Cincinnati? Wherefore we request the Board of Sinking Fund Commissioners to compromise this case and save the city a large amount of .useless expense.

Clipped from
  1. The Cincinnati Enquirer,
  2. 10 Oct 1907, Thu,
  3. Page 12

tjadams626 Member Photo

Want to comment on this Clipping? Sign up for a free account, or sign in