Argued On The Injunction

Judge Kinne Takes Paving Under Advisement

Was There a Majority Of Property Owners on the Petition for Liberty Street Paving the Question before the Court

The Liberty street paving injunction came up tor argument Monday in the circuit court on a motion to dissolve it, made by City Attorney Sawyer. The question finally simmered down in the argument as to whether or not the petition to the council had been signed by a majority of the property owners. Mr. Sawyer claimed 48 signatures out of 88 property owners and Mr. Stivers claimed there were but 44 signatures out of 106 property owners. To cut the signatures down to 44, Mr. Stivers argued that Anton Schaeberle's name was on twice, G. F. Stein signed as guardian without authority, G. W. Stimson was not included in the list of property owners set up by the bill and George J. Frey's name should be taken off. He wanted to put in proofs to remove several other names. He claimed that the O'Brien heirs who owned the property after their mothers' life estate and the Foster heirs, who were in the same condition. Mr. Sawyer seemed to concede that Stein's name be removed, but claimed that the other signatures were good. He claimed that the Foster grandchildren's interest was too remote, no property right yet resting, and claimed that the O'Brien property should be counted once. Mr. Stivers objected to the answer being taken as proven as not being sworn to. Judge Kinne took the matter under advisement to see if he could determine whether or not a majority of the property owners had signed the petition.