Los Angeles herald. [volume], January 01, 1891, New Year's Edition, 1891, Page 13, Image 13

About Los Angeles herald. [volume] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1890-1893

Image provided by: University of California, Riverside; Riverside, CA

                
CITY STATISTICS.
The Tax Levy and What It Has
Produced.
The Valuations of Property—What the
Money Raised by Taxes Was Spent
For— Comparisons.
Following will he found Borne very in
teresting tables. The first is a state
ment of the tax levy, with comparisons
with a number of years. It shows the
total rate and the apportionment to the
different funds, together with the
amounts produced by the levy. The
second table shows the value put upon
the city property by the tax collectors
during a series of years. It shows a
gradual increase, the valuation in 1889
being larger than that of previous years.
The third table is a complete exhibit of
the moneys expended in the different
departments by months. The figures in
each instance were taken from the city
records, and form a complete exhibit of
the financial condition of the city.
THE CITY TAX LEVY.
I
I.
I
H
to
qswo
tocc©©©co-3©<iaoc! ., .,. u .... . .
#■*■©©-i © © to © o w lueraundaa mm
ocoseoSooso
CO*.«530M©aOM© "O
oeosoooecow
M M
it-MCtMcjccifc-o*.?: a
Mcooiwor -i©oto
cocoooooeeo
#>0 totototOMtocoM
WH-wao-^K^-i
HMMrOBHB M
ocoe©©o©cn: o-i
©'ggfgssg; £2
looqag
aw: ::::::::
gg;;;;;:;
:::::: a*—: od
:::::: m~i©: 10
c©c- 01
J0;BA\ MOJI
■ MtOtOtOCCtOOV
©: mwccooo'^»io;
ov ooooocoo
::::::.:*::
: : ■■ : i : • i g: i
T88T puc-a
SuipuriH looqog
SuipuriH ic-oiiDg
; MMaftc; , I , . ......
w: gggggg: : : j ttAtftflr**»wt>
j I '• j : g: : —luomsAOidmi j.uni
to : ecus' : luorasAoadmi nuauag
«: 000$: : : :
i
S18I looqag
8081 S pun ■hit « a
H>: MODWCOCOOCI-JOO „.„„ .„„„'_..
H; tcc-*w©c.cw 0181 SPUB IUI
!-■ oco©o©©cc
Vi gggg 'WflT'SVIlodaayM
>ggg 1181'8 - ¥ I J3»8S uwh
: cow-jcoMiitei-ico „ T .„ „„„
k- KeaxoeeiMo 1181 B puu 1 "i ui
m ooiiooeoov
•c^ic©©• -em s puu-i iua 0
:©©*©©©©©©©
■*>:::::.:.::
Sti :::::::: :
m
S pun 'i i.dmi -g -j
" 8 pus 'I -g -S-mhi
to: :::::::: •
: ' j j : j U«H-*t!D
51 Si h i N ! j
o
* I "~ 2
tSMO,co©to-i-s»i©cc Si
©©©©©©©©cc© S
ggggggggggg I
VALUATIONS-CITY ASSESSOR.
I J
§ i
i ;
O £
0 I
* I
< I
"4 •
a
B
it
o :
,1
nil i
S o <t> S
I 2 * i M
I <t ■ 3 S-
;•*;»:
a :
Hi
X
X
I
w to P
W 01 M
g o> co a
© CO X ©
to © © to
h IS s s
X
X
to
X
CO
X
X
1
X
B
X
io
Oi
X
X
t
X
01
n
to *■ ©
M fc} M 01 tO
-J ■ to -t m
CO <1 X © to
» <J f-> M W
5 I 3 8 S
M
X
!
K J 5
XXX
s* >• *•
to 5 w
8X M
w la
*■ CO to
x 5j w
©
©
to *
CO M C
5 © © i
i * x c
1 H 8 !
5 to M C
M
X
I
X
e
w
! g
M
00
I
X
«
©
CO
1
CO
is
*■ >
i 1}
to
s
to
M
X
co
13
i !
S j
CO
10
co
25
X
I
8
M
X
THE LOS ANGELES HERALD THURSDAY MORNING, JANUARY 1, 1891.
CITY EXPENSES.
Totals...
nary ...
:h
I
life'.*.
Months.
r...
sr...
Cash Fund.
| $23,193 16
! 20,459 50
I 24,913 72
24,028 54
20,196 87
19,681 83
15,266 09
13,293 21
15,811 70
12,873 97
j 13.444 55
15.804 10
Salary Fund.
,196 56
$9,127 03
10,336 06
13,893 12
22,6»8 97
13 974 92
7.193 95
29,067 73
8,508 95
9,859 79
20,235 16
15.271 66
33,174 53
1889.
Fire Fund.
$55,197 19
$5,887
803
4,254
4,177
8,645
564
3,853
5,045
3,660
7.254
2.266
8,783
1890.
S9.367
19,077
30,603
0.017 :
17,331 <
19,957 I
3,256 I
3,476 I
3,300 .'
21,383 !
17.042 !
20.505 :
School Fund.
$1,812 34
16,569 08
18,879 80
22,907 99
35,339 43
20,935 20
5,518 62
20,510 50
17,808 81
18.135 93
49,429 91
19,460 97
$23,671 (
r$938 40
2,869 50
3.922 89
2,386 25
28 00
10,613 99
2.811 00
Park Fund.
I
EJbrary Fund.
$2(1,316 56
$833 82
1,641 45
3,379 08
1,490 39
1,112 !'6
1,061 86
1228 42
1,321 71
1,827 60
467 11
2,216 10
.3,736 06
$1,353 80
1 260 00
2,251 80
2.497 20
3.728 55
174 68
20,814 32
0,861 20
1,709 05
1889.
Sprinkling Fund.
$86 4<
018 3)
1,618 11
2,953 If
3,686 2(
4,202 9,'
4.595 0(
4.741 0<
3,893 51
3,825 If
2,386 8(
16,471 66
4,627 30
2 489 23
$2,001 13
2,563 3e
2 664 41
2.932 71
3,548 64
3,630 17
$57,763 88
Gas Fund.
$4,758
4,776
4,817
4 832
4,859
4.859
4,874
4.878
4,878
4,878
4,878
4,683
1890.
$11,000
8,000
9,525
5,475
11,166
6,000
. 9,089
3,190
59,091
36,212
17,200
17,013
City Hall Fund.
$ 1,802
$ 1.743 00
48 50
10 50
102 00
82 00
$3 00
150 00
1 8 OO
32 00
76 00
107 00
802 00
66 00
! 199 75
154 00
103 00
164 00
| " "180 00
i $136 00
8(i 00
112 00
Dog Fund.
1890.
New Water Fund.
$341
399
1,348
3593
4,234
3,847
769
746
725
643
652
1,805
Deposit Fund.
$995
1,225
1,570
1,922
748
1,610
853
1,030
933
2,211
2,093
1,604
$1,330
1,236
723
1,267
838
638
409
216
711
396
596
1,168
Redemption Fund.
*1,692
1,977
! 1,103
! 1.736
219
400
337
I 411
I 726
735
471
224
$171 C
650 4
230 6
21 7
101 3
78 '7
30 7
37 S
15 4
1,560 t
282 {
1889.
Tax Funds.
$2,612 t
$292
333
390
215
134
160
91
77
47
33
16
789
218
81
325
177
3,792
$27
424
512
225
668
119
1889. 1890.
General Sewer Fund.
"599 80
$303 00
60 00
52 28
214 40
78 00
15 00
3 15
$278
11,869
18,159
9,735
17,303
10,079
18,404
7,647
10,488
22,554
3-569
17,610
1890.
27
$2,990 00
20 009 77
37.071 10
42,847 28
30,111 57
25,226 82
1890.
Intern'l Sew-
er System
Fund.
127,937
$19,908 37
''5,064' 50
"2,852' 50
24 90
53 50
1890.
a
BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.
Statement of Bonded Indebtedness of
Loa Angeles, with Interest and Sink
ing Fund, as a Basis of Tax Levy for
1890-1891.
1. 1890
1
ustl, 1870
ist I. 1877
11, 1878
list 1, 1878, to
ril 30i 1880
1,1881.
1, 1886
1, 1887
lary 1,1888
ber 1,1889
Date )f Bonds.
Totals
Sewer System Bonds
er System Bonds, not issued.
Gen. Irrigation Bonds, 1878
Bonds of 1881
Gen. Impt. Bonds, 1st series
Gen. Impt. Bonds, 2d series
Gen. Impt. Bonds, 3d series
School Improvement Bonds
Funded Debt, Bonds
Main Sewer Bonds, 1877
Irrigation Imp. Bonds, 1877
Name of Bond 3.
40,000
58,000
150,000
40,000
55,000
200,000
154.000
* 76.000
17,000
21,000
Outstanding.
Amount
July 1, 1891, to July 1, 1911.
♦ •
Thirty years after date
July 1,1901
July 1,1906
July 1, 1907
'anuary 1, 1909
Oct 1, 1890 to Oct. 1, 1910
July 1,1891, to July 1,1911.
August 1.1885
July 1,1901
April 1,1896
When Due.
per ct. annually.
" semi-aify
Interest.
Rate of annual
f 58,240
2,800 00
4;OHO 00
9,000 00
2,400 00
3,300 00
10,000 00
7,700 00
$ 5,320 00
1,190 00 1
1,470 00
Annual Int.
i Amount of
$ 71,700)
$ 60,70ft
11,0001
$30,000 OO
0.40O OO
6,000 OO
10,000 OO
7,700 OO
Sinking fund,
to
pay bonds.
20,625 95
j 1,028
300
2,756
368
15,158
I 758
199
54
Balance to
credit of
funds.
Estimates Required for the fiscal Year,
1890-01.
Interest nnd sinking fund, 1870 ..J. 4,707 25
Main sewer interest and sinking
fund, 1887 990 10
Irrigation improvement interest
and sinking fund, 1877 1 450 19
General irrigation interest and
sinking fund 2,466 30
Bon fund of 1881 4,000 00
General improvement bond fund. 50,671 41
School improvement interest nnd
sinking fund 20,000 00
Internal sewer system interest and
sinking fund 37,400 00
Cash fund 257,626 49
Gas fund 64,249 43
Kire department fund 67,699 24
Street sprinkling fund 26,007 43
General sewer fund 1,359 50
Common school fund 78,847 26
Library fund 28,017 06
Park fund 62,861 22
WHERE THEY BLEW TO.
Former Los Angeles Notables Up in
the Sound Country.
A gentleman from the Sound country
last evening told a Herald reporter
considerable that is of interest about
Angeleiloe. DePuy, whose wife com
mitted suicide In this city, is practicing
law at Seattle. Louis Levy is running a
pawnshop at Tacoma. Barney Levy
acts the gentleman in different cities in
the Sound country. Loskay, formerly
of the bt. Elmo billiard parlors, runs a
high-toned saloon at Port Townsend.
Alford, who was filed from the
Los Angeles police department,
was until recently an officer at
Fairhaven. He got bounced for
getting intoxicated. B. Perry has
developed into a big sport, and makes
Victoria his headquarters. Stewart, the
pettifogging lawyer who furnished more
than one sensation for the Los Angeles
papers, is practicing law at Seattle. It
will be remembered that Stewart's wife
recently died here under suspicious cir
cumstances. Carlton Kemp, who re
ported a couple of years for the Express,
was until recently on the Globe staff at
Tacoma. Sackett Cornell has started an
afternoon daily on his own account at
Seattle. Young Morford is at Fairhaven,
and is not doing much for himself. The
gamblers and adventuresses who flour
ished here in boom days are scattered
throughout tho northwest.
The Kates They ray.
The following is the tax rate on each
one hundred dollars for the current year
in the different counties of the state:
Alameda, $1.30; Alpine, $3; Amador,
$1.75; Butte, $1.40; Calaveras, $1.80;
Colusa. $1.20; Contra Costa, $1.30; Del
Norte, $1.85; El Dorado, $2.10; Fresno,
$1.33; Humboldt, $1.40; Inyo, $2.50;
Kern, $1.50; Lake, $1.70; Lassen, $1.90;
Los Angeles, $1.50; Marin, $1.30; Mari
posa, $2.54; Mendocino, $1.75; Merced,
$1.50; Modoc, $1.70; Mono, $2.60; Mon
terey, $1.75; Napa, $1.50; Nevada,s2.46;
Orange, $1.75; Placer, $1.80; Plumas.
$2.50; Sacramento. $1.30; San Benitoj
$1.60; San Bernardino, $1.60: San Diego,
$1.72; San Francisco, $1.61; San Joa
quin, $1.12; San Luis Obispo, $1.44; San
Mateo, $1.35; Santa Barbara, $1.45; San
ta Clara, $1.30; Santa Crnz, $1.85; Shas
ta, $2.35; Sierra, $2.80; Siskiyou, $1.60;
Solano, $1.37; Sonoma,sl.2s ; Stanislaus,
$1.33; Sutter, $1.10; Tehama, $1.00;
Trinity, $2.80; Tulare, $1.40; Tuolumne,
$1.05; Ventura, $1.55; Yolo, $1.40; Yuba,
$1.85. These rates do not include special
taxes levied In school districts, nor levy
taxes or any other taxes for local public
improvements. They are the state and
county taxes. It will be noticed that the
highest rates are in mining counties.
How to Succeed.
This is the great problem oi life which few
satisfactorily solve. Some fail because of poor
health, others want of luck, but the majority
from deficient grit—want of nerve. They are
nervous, irresolute, changeble, easily get the
blues and "t-ke the spirits down to keep the
spirits up," thus wasting money, time, oppor
tunity and nerve force. There Is nothing like
the Restorative Nervine, discovered by the
great specialist, Dr. Miles, to cure all nervous
diseases, as headache, the blues, nervous pros
tration, sleeples-nonß. neuralgia, St. Vitus dunce,
tits, and hrsterla. Trial bottles and fine book of
testimonials free at K. W. Ellis & Co.
Send a Christmas present to your eastern
friends of Pure California Wines. H. J.
Woollacott, 124 and 126 N. Spring St., will de
liver two eases. 34 bottles, to any part of the
United states for 19 00.
Bakery.
Kbinfer'g bakery and ice cream and dining
parlors, oor. Third and S. Spring sts. 1
THE CITY'S LAW SUITS.
The Present Status of Municipal
Litigation.
A Fall List of all Salts In Which the
City Is Interested, and Their Status
for the Year Fast.
The litigation in which the city is in
terested.with the condition of the cases,
is shown by the following taken from
the city attorney's report for the year
up to December Cth:
The following is a list of the cases, to
gether witli a brief statement of the dis
position that has been made of them or
their present status:
H. W. Latham vs. city of Los Angeles
and L. M. Bigelow—This is an action
affecting the title to the land upon
which the Plaza engine house stands.
Judgment was rendered against the city
in 1883; an appeal was taken to the su
preme court, and this appeal was sub
mitted on briefs at the October term of
the supreme court, and a decision may
be expected any time.
City vs. Cromwell Galpin, et al.—This
action has been tried and a judgment
rendered against the defendant Clemans,
awarding the cily the piece of property
in the intersection of Ward and Fig
ueroa streets. Clemans is taking steps
to appeal the action.
H. S. Parcels vs. City of Los Angeles
—This action was brought to recover
$5050 alleged to be due Mr. Parcels as
fees while acting as tax collector. The
case has been tried in the superior court
and judgment rendered in favor of the
city. An appeal has been taken and is
now pending in the supreme court.
L. H. Bigelow vs. City of Los Angeles,
et al.—This was an action brought to en
join the building of the First-street via
duct. ' The injunction was denied in the
superior court, and upon an appeal
taken to the supreme court the judg
ment of the lower court, denying an in
junction to Mrs. Bigelow, was sustained.
H. W. Mills vs. City of Los Angeles.—
This action was brought to determine
plaintiffs right to sixteen feet of land
lying in Second street between Main and
Spring. The city won the case in the
superior court, and Mills has appealed,
and the case is now pending in the su
preme court.
City of Los Angeles vs. Francois
Douillard et al.—ls an action brought
to open Mozart street, the defendant
having closed the street, and claiming
the land therein. Judgment was ren
dered in favor of the city as to that part
of the land claimed by Douillard.
Main Street and Agricultural Park
Railroad vs. action Was
brought to enjoin the removal of a part
of plaintiff's buildings, which are
claimed to be in the line of * ashing
ton street. This action Is at issue, and
will be tried in the coming year.
French Behevolent Society vs. City.—
This action is brought to enjoin the
grading of Yale street, on the ground
that a protest of a majority of the prop
erty owners had been filed." This case is
still pending.
Louis Phillips et al. vs. Len J.Thomp
son and the City.—An action brought
by the plaintiff and fifty-five others to
prevent the collection ot certain taxes,
on the ground that the action of the
board of equalization was illegal and
void. This case was decided against the
city, and a motion for a new trial is now
pending.
Mary A. Mooney vs. City of Los An
geles—This action was brought to quiet
title to a piece of land on the corner of
Main and Jefferson streets, which has
been taken by the city for street pur
poses, and which plaintiff claims be
longs to her. This case is at issue, and
will be set for trial at the January term
of court.
Mary A. Moonev vs. W. E. Morford
and the Mayor and Council —This action
is brought to recover damages in the
amount of $23,400, alleged to be due for
cutting down certain trees upon the
land at the corner of Main and Jefferson
streets, and which land the city claims
is a part oi Jefferson street. This case
is at issue, and will be set for trial at
the next term of court.
Frick Bros. vs. Morford—This action
was brought to compel the street super
intendent to make a new assessment for
the grading of Seventh street. Judg
ment was rendered in favor of Colonel
Morford in the superior court, and was
submitted at the last term of court.
The following cases have been brought
since the date of my last annual report:
J. M. Dayies vs. City of Los Angeles—
This action was brought to enjoin the
sale of certain lots for the assessment
made by the commissioners for widen
ing and opening Davies street. A de
murrer was sustained to the complaint,
and plaintiff has never amended.
Depot Railway company vs. City—A
similar suit, and brought to enjoin the
sale of certain property to pay assesss
ment made for the opening of Davie
street. Action still pending.
Katie Wells vs. W. E. Morford et al.—
An action brought to enjoin the street
superintendent from removing a bridge
from street to sidewalk, used for carriage
drive. A permtftient injunction was
granted the plaintiff.
•M. M. Bovard et al. vs. W. E. Mor
ford—This suit was brought to enjoin
the collection of assessment for opening
Sixth street east. The injunction haa
been dissolved and the street superin
tendent ordered to proceed.
Elizabeth J. Guirardo vs. W. E. Mor
ford.—This action is similar to the last
one above. Has been won by the city,
and street superintendent instructed to
proceed.
J. F. Smith vs. Morford.—fame con
dition as the last-named case.
Charles Gassen vs. Morford.—Same
condition aa last case.
Antonio Valla vs. City of Los Angeles
and W. E. Morford.—This suit is brought
to enjoin the selling of plaintiff's prop
erty to pay assessment for widening First
street. This caae is awaiting the result
of a proposed compromise between plain
tiff ana other property-owners on the
street.
Alice Dehail et al. vs. City of Los An
geles—This suit was brought for the
same purpose as the last one. The case
is at issue, and will be set for trial at
the next term of court.
M. H. Bixby et al. vs. City and others
—This case is brought to quiet plain
tiff's title to certian lands in which the
city claimed no interest. A disclaimer
was filed per your instructions.
Alfred Solano et al. vs. Len J.JThomp
son and City of Los Angeles—ls a suit
brought to prevent the collection of cer
tain taxes raised by the board of equali
zation. The suit is still pending.
Jesse Yarnell vb. H. T. Hazard and
the City Council—This case was brought
to enjoin the loaning of the city money
to the City bank. The action was de
cided in favor of the city in the superior
court, was appealed by plaintiff to the
supreme court at the October term last,
and a decision may be expected at any
time.
Depot Railway Company vs. Morford
and City—This suit was brought to en
join the collection of assessment for
widening Second etreet. I have recom
mended the making of a new assessment
on this street, which will correct the
matters complained of.
J. M. Davies vs. City of Los Angeles
and W. E. Morford—This case is similar
to the last one. It was won by the
plaintiff in the lower court and taken to
the supreme court on the appeal of the
city, to test die validity of the street
opening law. The supreme court de
cided that the act under which we were
proceeding is valid, but sustained the
judgment of the lower court on account
of a technical irregularity in the pro
ceedings of the commissioners, antf to
remedy this I have recommended that a
new assessment be made at once.
H. Saunders vs. City and \V. E. Mor
ford—This action was brought to pre
vent the collection of assessment for
opening Third street. The case is now
pending on a demurrer to the plaintiff's
complaint.
Mark G. Jones vs. W. E. Morford—
This suit was brought to compel the
street superintendent to remove the
poles of the Electric railway company,
and was decided in favor of the de
fendant.
W. T. Williams vs. City of Los An
geles—An action brought to recover
$1000 for services rendered under a con
tract make with the city during the
term of a former city attorney. The
case has been tried in the superior court
and a verdict rendered against the city,
and it is now pending on appeal.
O. W. Childs vs. City of Los Angeles—
An action brought to prevent the pro
posed grading of Ward street. I have
lately reported fully in this mattei to
your honorable body and suggested that
proceedings be stopped in the opening
of this street until it is determined
where lines of the street should be.
Henry Obee vs.. City—Suit brought
to quiet title to certain lot and a dis
claimer tiled on part of City as per your
advice.
M. F. Lawson vs. City—Same.
People va. City and L. M. Bigelow—
This suit is brought to determine
whether or not the land upon which the
Plaza engine-house stands should not. be
used for park purposes. The case is
now pending on demurrer to the com
plaint.
A. J. Cobb vs. City of Los Angeles—
This suit was brought to recover $3000
for alleged wrongful action of policeman
in preventing plaintiff from selling fruit
from wagon standing on the public
streets. The demurrer of the city was
sustained.practically defeating plain tiffs
action.
Los Angeles Cemetery Association vs.
City—This suit is for the purpose of
quieting title to certain lands claimed
by plaintiff, now in the line of East
First Btreet. This case ie at issue, and
will be set for trial at the next term of
court.
Los Angeles Cemetery Association vs.
City, No. 2—This case is brought to re
cover damages claimed to have been
caused by reason of grading First etreet.
This suit is at issue, and will be set
for trial at the next term of court.
City of Los Angeles vs. Ella M. Linde
et al. —This case is brought against 130
defendants to determine any damages
they may claim by reason of the regrad
ing of Temple street. Nearly all of the
defendants have been served and the
others will be served as rapidly as possi
ble.
St. Paul's School vs. City of Los An
geles—This suit is brought to quiet title
to certain land claimed by the city on a
part of Ward street. The case is at is
sue and will be set for trial as soon as
possible.
First National Bank vs. City Council
—Suit brought to enjoin the collection
of certain taxes raised by the board of
equalization. This case "has been de
cided in favor of the plaintiff.
Farmers and Merchants Bank vs. City
Council—Brought for the same purpose
and same action taken.
Los Angeles Savings Bank vs. City
Council—Same. Same.
M. C. Marsh vs. City and Others—
This suit has just been brought, and is
for the purpose of foreclosing a street
lien on certain property claimed by the
city as a part of Pasadena avenue.
City of Los Angeles vs. M. D. Johnson
and his bondsmen—ls an action just
brought for the purpose of collecting
certain interest claimed to be due the
city upon the city money from the time
it was ordered to be turned over to the
City bank until it was actually turned
over, Mr. Johnson in, the meantime
having been enjoined by the superior
court.
The following cases have been prose
cuted in the police court for the eleven
months ending November 1,1890:
Number of drunks 660
Number of vagrants 126
Number of miscellaneous offenders 354
Total number of cases 1,140
Total amount of fines Imposed and col
lected $2,572
Total number of days' imprisonment im
posed 5,247
In addition to the foregoing the city
attorney has prepared several hundred
ordinances, has drawn all contracts
necessary, and has prepared numerous
written opinions for the city council and
the city officers.
PLENTY OF LIGHT.
The Extent of the City's Electric
Light System.
Los Angeles is eminently a well
lighted city. The Los Angeles Lighting
company controls both the gas and
electric light plants, and shows a dispo
sition to keep pace with the progress the
city is making in other ways.
The city is lighted by 217 electric
lamps; 117 of these are located on thirty
four 150-foot masts. The balance are
on poles from twelve to fifty feet high, or
suspended at street intersections. To
convey the electric current necessary to
light these lamps, sixty-five miles of
main wire is required.
The lamps are lighted on what is
known as "moonlight schedule." That
ie, they are lighted one half hour after
sunset,or one hour before moon-set, and
are extinguished one hour before sun
rise or one hour after moon rise, each
night, except the night of full moon and
the night before, and the night after full
moon, when no lamps are lighted. The
price paid by the city is on the basis of
$12 per 2000 candle power lamp per
month.
During the past year the Los Angeles
Electric company has added an incan
descent plant to its system. This plant,
complete, cost about $15,000. Among
other improvements it has built a new
gasometer, at a cost of $46,000. It has
built a new brick retort bouse at a cost
of $30,000, It has built a new brick ex
hauster house, at a cost of $3000. It has
laid about five miles of main pipe in the
public streets, at a cost of $25,000, and
it is now contemplating the extension of
its pipe system to East Los Angeles and
Boyle Heights.
The Herald Job Office is now better
prepared to turn out first-class job print
ing than ever. Give us a call when in
need of printing of any description.
13
REAL ESTATE.
Record of the Transfers for Several
Years.
Over Twelve Thousand—A Kesume of
the Business for the Past Tv»elye_
Months With Comparisons.
The real estate transfers during the
year amounted to $19,344,187, or about 40
per cent, less than in 1889. The proba
bilities are that if the amount repre
sented by the transfers under the head
nominal considerations were known,
the difference would not be ho
great. This is the one division
of the transfers that has held its
own, and it is to be regretted that there
are no means of knowing how much the
actual amount of the transfers was dur
ing the year. The record shows that
there was a brisk business during the
spring of the year, but that it decreased
during the summer, and that toward
the close of the year matters looked con
siderably better, with indications of a
lively business next spring. A large
number of the purchasers during the
year were people who bought for the
purpose of building homes. There was
very little speculation, those who had
invested for that purpose preferring to
hold for an advance to selling during a
dull season. Following is a resume of
the business of the year, together with a
comparison with 1887, 1888 and 1889:
Totals..
January
February
March
April
May ...
June
July
August
September. .
October
November. .
December....
Nominal.
1897.
Under $1000 Each.
1887.
Over $1000 Each.
10/
1887.
1888.
Total Consideration.
-
1883.
604,350
694,136
902.852
782,883
751,340
1,234,904
541,188
1,109,122
812,176
748,203
1,182,412
1883.
1886.
1887.
Amount.
1888.
No.
Amount.
1S39.
!. I
Xo.
1890.
Amount. |
INTERNAL REVENUE.
A Decided Increase of Collections Over
Former Years.
The United States internal revenue
office in this city makes the following
statement regarding the year's business:
The total collections of 1889 were
$143,000. For the past year they will be
over $150,000, in round figures, showing
a healthy increase, and due more partic
ularly to* the expiration of the bonded
period on large quautitiea of gCftf »
bi-andy produced in this district.
REAL ESTATE TRANSFERS.