Lucier v. City of Manchester

• Decision Date: 04 April 1922
• Citation: 117 A. 286
• Parties: LUCIER v. CITY OF MANCHESTER.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

117 A. 286

LUCIER

v. CITY OF MANCHESTER.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.

April 4, 1922.

Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Marble, Judge.

Action by Alvin J. Lucier against the City of Manchester. Transferred from superior court. Judgment for plaintiff.

Assumpsit, for services rendered between November 28, 1919, and January 6, 1921. Trial by the court.

In July, 1919, the plaintiff was retained by the mayor of Manchester in a matter wherein the board of public works was under investigation, and assisted the solicitor in several hearings. The plaintiff was paid by the defendant In November, 1919, the plaintiff was again retained by the mayor to prosecute charges against members of the board of commissioners of public works. Under this employment, the plaintiff conferred with the mayor and others, with the result that on February 24, 1920, hearing was held before the board of mayor and aldermen. Much evidence was introduced, and a verdict was rendered after hearing. At this hearing Alderman Clough interrogated the solicitor at length as to the employment of the plaintiff, and the solicitor answered as follows:

"In relation to this particular matter, I would like to make a statement. It is a mistake of the presiding officer when he says that Mr. Lucier is counsel for the mayor. Mr. Lucier is counsel for the city of Manchester. I know nothing about this matter. The mayor saw fit to have special counsel to handle the matter, and he is here now. Personally I do not know anything about the case, and I will not participate in any way whatsoever. I think this is the first time I ever heard the charges read. However, the city of Manchester is ably represented by this geptleman here."

Subsequently to this hearing and verdict, the plaintiff represented the city of Manchester in the superior court in the suit Warren v. Verrette, which was prosecuted to a final determination in the supreme court. November 11, 1920, the plaintiff was notified by the city clerk of Manchester to be present at the meeting of the board of mayor and aldermen on November 16, 1920, to answer questions relative to the public works department controversy. The notification was ordered by the mayor and aldermen. The plaintiff could not attend the meeting, and so notified said clerk. November 19, 1920, the plaintiff was again notified to appear on December 7, 1920. The plaintiff, in obedience to said notification, appeared and answered numerous questions concerning the litigation, and upon vote of the board was excused from further attendance.

April 19, 1921, after the plaintiff had rendered his hill for services, the board of mayor and aldermen approved the bill and ordered it paid. "Within 10 days thereafter the finance commission for the city of Manchester, established by Laws 1921, c. 226, vetoed the action. The amount charged by the plaintiff for the services rendered is found to be reasonable.

If on the foregoing facts the plaintiff is entitled to recover, there is to be Judgment for him for $1,546.35; otherwise judgment for the defendant.

Alvin J. Lucier, of Nashua, pro se.

Thomas J. Bois, of Manchester, for defendant.

PEASLEE, J. "All the powers vested by law in towns, or in the inhabitants thereof, shall be exercised by the city councils. * * *" P. S. c. 50, § 1.

"The common council of the city of Manchester is hereby abolished and all the powers now by law vested in said common council are hereby vested in the board of mayor and aldermen of said city, to be exercised by said board of mayor and aldermen in addition to all the existing powers of said board." Laws 1915, c. 249, § L

By virtue of these statutes, all the powers, vested by law in towns are exercised by the mayor and...