07221969 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I The matter was reported to the city promptly, and city employees went back out there and did everything they could at that time to clean up the area and make it safe. There was a newspaper story about this, and we can assume is that the public ere already pretty well informed as to what happened. In addition to the cattle of Mr, Hughson that died, one cow belonging to Mrs. Krause also died, apparently from the same cause. Mr. Hughson made a claim against the city for his loss arising from the death of his cattle, It was apparent at this time that the city needed legal advice as to how to proceed. The city attorney, Mr. Albert M. Walker, did not feel he could properly represent the city in the matter, because of the fact that he also is the attorney for Mr. Hughson. Mr. Walker felt that he could not properly represent either side, I City officials then decided to consult with Mr. Ernest . Morgan, an attorney of this city, and Mr. Morgan accepted employment. After Mr. Morgan had been employed to represent the city, he promptly consulted Mr. Hughson and Mr. Max Garrett, an attorney of Houston who was representing Mr. Hughson. A number of conferences between Mr. Hughson and Mr. Garrett, on the one hand, and Mr. Morgan, on the other, followed. During the course of the proceedings Mr. Morgan advised me and various other members of the City Council that, in his opinion, it was extremely doubtful whether the city would be held legally liable for the damage to Mr. Hughson. He also pointed out, however, that even though the city may not be liable, there was a possibility that city employees might be, and that whether city employees would I be liable to Mr, Hughson would depend on what they did, wha.t knowledge they had about the material used, and other factors.