The Courier-Journal, October 20, 1956:Louisville Wins Business Area of St. MatthewsLouisville Wins Business AreaArea’s Businessmen greet Ruling With Dislike, Favor, IndifferenceOne Says Views Don’t Alter FactSt. Matthews business operators showed a mixed reaction yesterday to the Court of Appeals ruling placing them in Louisville.A survey of businesses along Lexington Road and Frankfort Avenue turned up strong feelings pro and con, as welt as indifference.Fred Bittner of Bittner’s Radio & Music Shop, 3712 Lexington Road, said: “I don’t like it. I prefer to remain in St. Matthews.”Bittner said if there is recourse to the court decision, he. is ready to fight.‘We’ll Abide by Decision’: However, another Lexington Road merchant, who preferred not to be identified, said, “I’drather 10 to 1 be in Louisville with all the City services I can get?’Norman P. Ackerman, manager of Sears, Roebuck & Company’s St. Matthews branch, said, “Whether we like or dislikethe decision doesn’t alter it. We’ll abide by what the court says.”Ackerman, who also is president of the St. Matthews Business Association, made it plain he was speaking only for himselfand not for the business association.Ackerman said the association was purely for promoting business and does not take stands on other issues.Notes Fire Protection: Maxwell Horn of Maxwell’s Apparel, 3926 Frankfort Avenue, would he “very happy to be in Louisville.”He said that while St. Matthews’ police and fire protection is good, it is not as good as Louisville can provide.Richard M. Wheeler, Jr., of the Canary Cottage restaurant, 3722 Lexington Road, and George Venhoff of Shower’s Boys &Men’s Shop, 3930 Frankfort Avenue, both said the move did not make much difference to them.Others Fail To Comment: J. P. Terry, who operates a service station at 3800 Lexington Road, said, “I’d rather be in St.Matthews. I like it’ here.”Lewis Smithers of Smithers Super Market, 3141 Lexington Road, said “he would prefer to stay in St. Matthews because‘We’ve put in lots of work to get the <strong>com</strong>munity going.”However, be added that he had nothing against Louisville and was quite willing to accept the court’s decision.Other businessmen interviewed refused to express opinions, explaining that their customers came from both the City of St.Matthews and Louisville,
The Courier-Journal, October 20, 1956:Appeals Court Upholds AnnexingJefferson Circuit Court Judge’s Adverse Decision Is ReversedThe Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the City of Louisville can annex a large part of the St. Matthews business district.The decision reversed Judge Stephen Jones of Jefferson Circuit Court. A jury in Judge Jones’ court returned a verdictagainst annexation in March, 1955.Louisville passed an ordinance proposing to annex the business district in 1946. A remonstrance petition was filed in CircuitCourt, however , and the petition did not <strong>com</strong>e to trial until last year. Meanwhile, the City of St. Matthews annexed thedistrict in 1953.The area in question runs along both sides of Lexington Road from Eline avenue east to Shelbyville Road.It continues east on the north side of Shelbyville Road to Chenoweth Lane and on the south side as far as Fairfax Avenue.Between Wallace and Fairfax, it dips south in jogs as far as Willis, Davies, and Grandview Avenues.It includes the St. Matthews City hall and Police Headquarters at 131 Breckenridge Lane.Louisville Mayor Delighted: Louisville’s Mayor Broaddus <strong>com</strong>mented:Louisville Wins Business Area“If the decision had gone against us, I would have accepted it. Naturally, I’m delighted that the decision was for us. I feelsure the Court of Appeals ruling is correct, fair, and just. I hope everybody will accept it in that spirit.”St. Matthews Mayor James H. Noland said he was not surprised by the decision, but would fight “it” if recourse is available.”He noted that a “good portion” of the St. Matthews business district is not involved in the court decision.Attorney ‘Not Excited’: Wilbur O. Fields, attorney for businessmen who fought the annexation attempt, said he was “notexcited” by yesterday’s ruling.Fields said that in his opinion the Mallon-plan proposal repeals the 1946 ordinance under which Louisville sought the annexation.Therefore the out<strong>com</strong>e of the Mallon-plan vote November 6 will determine whether the area be<strong>com</strong>es annexed, Fields said.A petition for rehearing the case can be made to the Court of Appeals within 30 days. If this is done, the City of Louisvillehas another 30 days to file an answer to the petition.Will Await Vote: Briefs then would be submitted by both sides to reach a final determination of the case.Fields said he would wait until after the vote on the Mallon plan to decide if a rehearing will be sought. The vote will determinewhether a large suburban area, including St. Matthews, will be merged with Louisville.Herman Friek, assistant City attorney who argued the City’s case in last year’s trial, was asked to <strong>com</strong>ment on Field’s opinionthat the Mallon plan repeals the earlier annexation ordinance.“That’s a point he will have to attempt to prove in future litigation,” he said.Louisville Steps Outlined: If and when a final judgment is handed down upholding Louisville’s proposing-annexationordinance, the City will then pass an ordinance actually annexing the area.Immediate steps then will be taken to provide City services to the area, said Mayor Broaddus and City Consultant RoyOwsley.Both Broaddus and Owsley felt the Court of Appeals decision would have a favorable effect on the Mallon-plan vote.“It should create additional sentiment for orderly annexation, with services furnished by the City as set forth by the Mallonplan,” Broaddus said.William L. Archer, chairman of the St. Matthews Annexation Protective Association, a party to last year’s suit against annexationby Louisville, called yesterday’s ruling “quite a setback.”Will Fight Decision: He said it would “take the backbone out of the City of St. Matthews.” He added that the businessdistrict should .not be separate from the rest of the City of St. Matthews.Archer said his group would fight the decision.St. Matthews Mayor Noland disagreed that loss of the business area would be severe for the fourth-class City of St. Matthews.He estimated a loss of about $22,500 in tax revenues if the area is annexed, out of a total of $900.00 available to his City.Louisville Claim Superior: The Court of Appeals ruling, delivered in Frankfort., was written by Commissioner Robert K.Cullen.
- Page 2 and 3: Explanation of the following pages,
- Page 4 and 5: The Voice of St. Matthews, April 20
- Page 6 and 7: The Voice of St. Matthews, April 20
- Page 8 and 9: The Voice of St. Matthews: July 17
- Page 10 and 11: The Voice of St. Matthews: Septembe
- Page 12 and 13: The Voice of St. Matthews, Septembe
- Page 14 and 15: The Voice of St. Matthews, Septembe
- Page 16 and 17: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 18 and 19: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 20 and 21: The Voice of St. Matthews:1955 Adve
- Page 22 and 23: The Voice of St. Matthews, May 5, 1
- Page 24 and 25: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 26 and 27: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 28 and 29: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 30 and 31: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 32 and 33: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 36 and 37: The Courier-Journal, October 20, 19
- Page 38 and 39: The Voice Of St. Matthews, January
- Page 40 and 41: The Voice Of St. Matthews, January
- Page 42 and 43: The Voice Of St. Matthews, January
- Page 44 and 45: The Voice Of St. Matthews, January
- Page 46 and 47: The Voice Of St. Matthews, January
- Page 48 and 49: The Voice Of St. Matthews, January
- Page 50 and 51: The Voice Of St. Matthews, February
- Page 52 and 53: The Voice Of St. Matthews, July 18,
- Page 54 and 55: The Voice of St. Matthews, August 1
- Page 56 and 57: The Voice of St. Matthews, August 1
- Page 58 and 59: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 60 and 61: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 62 and 63: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 64 and 65: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 66 and 67: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 68 and 69: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 70 and 71: The Voice of St. Matthews, January
- Page 72 and 73: The Voice of St. Matthews, April 2,
- Page 74 and 75: The Voice of St. Matthews, July 16,
- Page 76 and 77: The Voice of St. Matthews, July 16,
- Page 78 and 79: The Voice of St. Matthews, July 16,
- Page 80 and 81: The Voice of St. Matthews, July 16,
- Page 82 and 83: The Voice of St. Matthews, July 16,
- Page 84 and 85:
The Voice of St. Matthews, July 16,
- Page 86 and 87:
The Voice of St. Matthews, July 16,
- Page 88 and 89:
The Voice-Jeffersonian, April 9, 19
- Page 90 and 91:
The Voice-Jeffersonian, April 9, 19
- Page 92 and 93:
The Voice-Jeffersonian, April 9, 19
- Page 94 and 95:
The Voice-Jeffersonian, April 9, 19
- Page 96 and 97:
Jim Herron Collection:L & N St. Mat
- Page 98 and 99:
The Voice, July 25, 1974:Reading it
- Page 100 and 101:
The Voice, July 25, 1974:25th Anniv
- Page 102 and 103:
The Voice, July 25, 1974:falling li
- Page 104 and 105:
The Voice, July 25, 1974:Under Ogle
- Page 106:
The Voice, July 25, 1974:25th Anniv