Waterbury Democrat

THEY CLAIM
DAMAGES
PEOPLE WHOSE PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY THE FRESHET.

Papers Were Served To-day by Constable Carmody and Sheriff Rigney

Cases Returnable to the September Session of the Superior Court--Several More Cases Will be Brought Later.

During the recent freshets people's attention was turned almost entirely to the condition of the public streets, and the constant theme on all sides was how the city would manage to meet the expense of making good the damage. There was another phase of the subject, however, to which the bulk of the people gave but little thought, but there were a few of those directly concerned whose whole thoughts were centered upon the damage done their own property, and the result of all this deliberation came to a head recently, when various people owning property along the line of Little brook, principally residents of Pearl street, decided to sue the city for the losses sustained by reason of the drenching their places received from the overflow from the brook.

Suits were brought to-day against the city by a number of people. After mentioning the different dates on which the storms occurred and recounting the damage done thereby, the complainants allege:

That from time to time since its incorporation said defendant had negligently altered the natural courses of said streams in various places, and had negligently permitted the same to be altered, and had narrowed and encroached upon the natural channels of said streams and had permitted the same to be done, particularly at a place on North Main street, near the junction of said street with Cooke street, at East Main street near the junction of said street with Brook street and on Grove street; said defendant had also at different times and in many places within the boundaries of said city, diverted, collected and discharged great quantities of surface water into said streams by the construction and maintenance of gutters, drains, openings from the surface of streets, pavements, sewers and catch basins, and had negligently permitted walls, dams and other obstacles to be placed in the channels of said streams and had negligently neglected and refused to remove from such channels the walls, earth, stones, dams and other obstructions which had been placed, and had accumulated therein on account of the acts and neglect of the defendant, and further had at all times neglected and negligently failed to provide means to carry off the added quantities of surface waters which it had diverted and caused to flow into said channel of Little brook.

The complaint then goes on to state that by reason of this negligence on the part of the city the property of the complainants has been damaged to the amounts mentioned in the paper.

Judge Bradstreet and Judge Lowe made out papers for the following parties, each claiming the amount set opposite his name:

Charles Caswell, $500.
John Malev, $500.
John Saxenhauser, $500.
Leo and Minnie Klug, $500
John Werzenger, $500.
W. M. Carter, $500.

These papers were turned over to Constable Carmody to be served upon the city through Clerk Grady.

Judge Burpee and Attorney Wilson H. Pierce prepared the papers for the following persons, each claiming the amount set opposite his name:

Lucien Pratte, $1,200.
W. H. Batchelder, two suits, $1,200.
Walter H. Cook, $300.
J. W. Cone, three suits, $650.
Thomas Kelly, three suits, $1,800.
D. B. Wilson, $1,000.
The D. B. Wilson Co, three suits, $3,100.
G. L. Dexter & Co, three suits, $1,980.

These papers were served by Sheriff Rigney. All are returnable to the district court on the first Tuesday in September. There are a few more which are not ready just yet and by the time the cases come up for a hearing it is believed that the list will be increased by enough complainants to swell the amount to at least $5,000 or $6,000 more.