Council Proceedings: October 2, 1905

ReadAboutContentsHelp

Pages

1
Complete

1

M. L. CHAMBERS REALTY CO. 206 Fort Worth National Bank Bldg.

FORT WORTH, TEXAS, Sept. 2, 1905 190

To The Honorable City Council, Ft. Worth, Texas.

Gentlemen:

We, the undersigned citizens and tax-payers of Fort Worth, respectfully petition your honorable body to extend the water mains on South Main Street across the Santa Fe and H.& T. C. Railroads to a point about 200 feet South of said Railroads. There will be three taps made to said mains immediately, and several more in a short time. We are willing to abide by the customary regulations required by the City in making such extensions.

The property to which we ask that the mains be laid is known as the South Main Addition, and is within the corporate limits of the City of Fort Worth.

CR Keith TG Eddleman Mrs J. D. Linthieun John P King CD Minter

800 feet

Last edit over 1 year ago by Koliver
2
Complete

2

PET

34

FILLED SEP 8 1905 Jno T. Montgomery City Sec'y.

Last edit over 1 year ago by Koliver
3
Complete

3

TEXAS PT6. CO. FORT WORTH

OFFICE OF FORT WORTH.

CITY WATER WORKS. JNO. F. LEHANE, Chairman Water Committee. H. L. CALHOUN, Secretary.

FORT WORTH, Texas, Oct. 2nd, 1905.

Hon. Mayor and City Council.

Gentlemen;-

We, your committee on Water Works, to whom was referred that attched petition of parties living on South Main street beg to report that in as much as it will require about 800 feet of water main to reach to said property and in as much as there are only one house erected in the said distance we recommend that the petition be filed until such time as the income from the line will justify the expenditure of the amount necessary to extend the same.

Respectfully submitted. John F Lehane WH Ward JF Henderson

Water Works Committee.

Last edit over 1 year ago by Koliver
4
Complete

4

WWKs

28

FILED OCT 2 1905 Jno T. Montgomery City Sec'y

Last edit over 1 year ago by Koliver
5
Complete

5

To the Honorable Mayor and City Council,

Gentlemen:

With reference to the attached petition of J. S. Carruthers, I would state that the petition does not make a statement of facts but rather of conclusions.

Mr. Carruthers has called to see me and furnished me with a memorandum showing to me that he took a deed from the trustees on the 2nd day of November, 1900 which was placed of record on the 9th day of November, 1900. This would prima facie put the title in Mr. Carruthers on the 1st day of January, 1901, and make the assessment proper and legal.

On the other hand, however, r. Carruthers represents to me that after the date of the making of his deed an after the date of 1st of January, 1901 the lot in controversy was in possession of the church being used by them for church purposes and that it was necessary for the conference to approve the sale to him which was not done until sometime during the year 1901.

If the property was being used as church property on the 1st of January, 1901, that is a place of religious worship, and if title had not passed by reason of a want of approval by conference, the concurrence of both facts being necessary, the assessment was invalid. If the statements made by Mr. Carruthers are true, and for the purpose of this opinion I am forced to so assume, in my opinion the assessment is invalid. It would be well, however, to have a report from the Assessor establishing the truth of Mr. Carruthers' statement before final passage on the matter. I have no reason to disbelieve Mr. Carruthers' statement, but think that in the regular course of events a statement of facts should always be left to the Assessor for his approval as to the correctness or incorrectness.

Respectfully submitted,

EC Orrick City Atty

Last edit over 1 year ago by Koliver
Displaying pages 1 - 5 of 90 in total