wwwebster
Active Member
The following is an excerpt from the April 4, 1913 edition of the Toronto World:
St. Patrick’s Market Cannot Be Used for Other Purposes
Effort of City to Act in Opposition to Will of Testator Was of No Avail
Yesterday was Toronto’s day at the Parliament buildings. The city had a ponderous bill before the private bills committee, and, like many other private bills, it was cut and mutilated unmercifully. The city was represented by W.K. McNaught, the sponsor of the bill; Mayor Hocken, Corporation Counsel Geary and the board of control.
The strongest gale that struck the city’s plans was directed against the request that the city should be allowed to use the site of St. Patrick’s market for civic purposes other than as a civic market, in spite of the fact that when the property was bequeathed to the city by D’Arcy Boulton in 1837 it was expressly provided that it was to be used forever as a public market and that if the city ceased to use it for this purpose, the property should revert to the heirs of the Boulton estate.
Mr. Geary, in pleading for the legislature’s sanction to the clause providing that the city might “use the site for other purposes that a market notwithstanding the provisions of any conveyance thereof,” stated that the property had been used for a market for 75 years and that now it was no longer suitable for this purpose.
H.T. Beck, counsel for the heirs of the Boulton estate, strenuously objected to the passing of the clause. “If the city doesn’t require the market they ought to give the land back. They are only able to upset the will on a technicality.”
Almost Insulting
“If this action had been taken by private parties they would have been called dishonorable men,” said J.R. Cartwright, deputy attorney-general. “The sum that is offered to the heirs, $5000, is ridiculous, almost insulting. The land is worth almost $200,000.”
Mayor Hocken claimed the land was worth no more than $40,000. “Mr. Boulton’s action,” he said, “was not primarily philanthropic in giving that market to the city. He wanted to add to the value of his own property adjoining. If the property paid taxes its price would have been paid out twice over in two years.”
The net result of the discussion was that the committee struck out the clause. The city officials were disappointed at this turn in their plans, and after the committee had risen Mayor Hocken said he was certain the city would now go on and rebuild the market.
St. Patrick’s Market Cannot Be Used for Other Purposes
Effort of City to Act in Opposition to Will of Testator Was of No Avail
Yesterday was Toronto’s day at the Parliament buildings. The city had a ponderous bill before the private bills committee, and, like many other private bills, it was cut and mutilated unmercifully. The city was represented by W.K. McNaught, the sponsor of the bill; Mayor Hocken, Corporation Counsel Geary and the board of control.
The strongest gale that struck the city’s plans was directed against the request that the city should be allowed to use the site of St. Patrick’s market for civic purposes other than as a civic market, in spite of the fact that when the property was bequeathed to the city by D’Arcy Boulton in 1837 it was expressly provided that it was to be used forever as a public market and that if the city ceased to use it for this purpose, the property should revert to the heirs of the Boulton estate.
Mr. Geary, in pleading for the legislature’s sanction to the clause providing that the city might “use the site for other purposes that a market notwithstanding the provisions of any conveyance thereof,” stated that the property had been used for a market for 75 years and that now it was no longer suitable for this purpose.
H.T. Beck, counsel for the heirs of the Boulton estate, strenuously objected to the passing of the clause. “If the city doesn’t require the market they ought to give the land back. They are only able to upset the will on a technicality.”
Almost Insulting
“If this action had been taken by private parties they would have been called dishonorable men,” said J.R. Cartwright, deputy attorney-general. “The sum that is offered to the heirs, $5000, is ridiculous, almost insulting. The land is worth almost $200,000.”
Mayor Hocken claimed the land was worth no more than $40,000. “Mr. Boulton’s action,” he said, “was not primarily philanthropic in giving that market to the city. He wanted to add to the value of his own property adjoining. If the property paid taxes its price would have been paid out twice over in two years.”
The net result of the discussion was that the committee struck out the clause. The city officials were disappointed at this turn in their plans, and after the committee had risen Mayor Hocken said he was certain the city would now go on and rebuild the market.
