New-York daily tribune., 1858-03-02
CkRl SEXfNIM.

Ssr,sse s,,as Peg I, 2 =, d. ID Iron. ssss
and trot1 6idgc all of which be wrotgly I'd
Tts peg % .Ns ys% and 10 G Y
mcc Of the ts2ft h,x up,n hch
been srs,l,ou, SLOWED by A.s-sso-, 70 the conY,or
CASE EIGHTH.
Paving Tagging Si;ns crt and gutter Thirty fourth street,
between Fourth a. Dlsdsor aycuue, J.hr han
and Edward oyle yo The asS~sme1t lit con
6red in Ocob 1876 The Assessor. psie the smoun dne b
contractor pr said SI15l %
bu the amount rightly due him, per contTs,t was "@ .
dis,re1ce ssn.. property owners .......... s2s 70
or ,ek erearad brS7r rodsnd bridge fon vrnishef
which he wroDRy certified incudd in hc contract At prre
Of 81 70 pr cubic yard IL cents and . cents square foot
when on the contrary those items Of work were covered by the
prices paid for paving hsfgg tc "a hpnnng thereto In
not Above by the ordnance one wn appointed and Dis
fees amounting 70 $40 S. were s'"sed sfan the property
OwDers.
CASE NINTH.
Regulating Foythird 're, from Third 70 Enh syeue'
The st confirmed IN October 1886 The Asses
made the amount due TO the con'sctos IS per o n
the nightly and legally him, con .e -
tract wss''.''''
difference se.iu.. property owner. of...... sl2e 90
which excess has 70 foundation upon he - sc h The
Of s o. fees sso sSTsd % ,16oatmn and an
inspector was not SLOWED by the ordinance
CASE TENTH: J.. ro..h .vor,,e
Pavns Tbirt street from Ninth 10 Tenth avenue
Jobn ys contractor and Edward Boyle surveyor The
assessment .t was confirmed October 1856 The Asses,oT.
But nightly and legally due him as per CON s,a q
Adherence against the property owners off,. Sas 81
.nrs and therefore appears to have been gratutousy
allowed BY them the contractor and necessarily became an
.e saaad on Rf pn Sdra s although an
Inspector was allowed BY the ordinance
CASE ELEVENTH.
Setting curb and gutter and tagging Foynnth street from
N;nb no Eleventh avenue. C. c. Bliss contractor ssd
ThaA Aaea ade the
70 contractor per said 70
But the amount rightly and legally due him as psr
difference against property of ..... $3.50 90
Which ike the preceding 10 sounded data
dscoyerabe in the returns furnished the and has
the ike appearance of grstuty 10 the contractor
CASE TwELFrH
Paving Sixth from foysecond Forty eighth street
William Humes contractor and John r podge snrveyoT'
The assessment list confirmed in October 1856 The As
made the amount due to the coat'-oT per 90, ~
But s@d ths amount nightly and legally due bm as per con.
tract, 0OI %
which excess founded upon the face of the
usHrc,b to tbr d"ITned The contractor however re-
ceved the benefit of it. and the assesment made upon the
property owners it also for the additional Of $92
inspection fees notwithstanding the ordinance did not allow the
appointment Of an Inspector.
CASE THIREENTH.
Paving and tagging Eighth avenue, from Fayrst % Sy
third j. Cunningham contractor and John Dodge
surveyor The assessment list confirmed In October Gto
The Assessors made the amount due to the contractor
But lSe & amount nightly and legally due him. per
contract, ilss "
difference ssain.t property of....... s3n go
which the Of 9 co. msde from extra allowances
laid gutter relaid which he wIonguy certified
included in the contract prices respectively OF So 80 and
but ali o PS tm work Intended TO be aud
beTeo Il Thu pf bs1ce d Of the not
accounted by data the face the returns and seems
TO have been gratuitously allowed TO the contractor
Fssaing Tenth from Forty sixhto Fytourth street
J. Cunnine was contractor Graves sVeySa & IN. as
the due 70 the contractor az per said list ~ oS
But the amount rightly aud legally due him per
contract iSf 90
difference against prou. rty owners o. .. $3.50 80
Which excess is made up from allowances by Street
Commissioner for rock pairing aud eb dnt gy, re-
embraced the contract at prices respectively OF ~ % per cnc
yard IS cents square yard 10 cent: per nSi oo ana % %
and was covered by the price paid for tagging
CASE FIFTEENTH.
PAWN, and Hssrns Thirty fifth street from Tenth Eleventh
John Calkins contractor ard John T. Dods
surveyor The assessment list was confirmed in october lS
The Assessors made the amount due 70 the cohfac0fa a.
But the amount rightly md legally due him a. per con-
tract l,
difference ,p,ipst property owners Of ... $6l2 20
Which made ap rpu an Extra allowance by the Com
missioner for ro .and and a to the sm0ani Of sS,2 90
the assessment against the property owners
CASE SIXTEENTH.
Paving FOrty.seyenth street seventh 70 tfnth
Cunningham Humes were the contractors and John l. Dodge
surveyor The assessment list confirmed in October 1885,
The Assessors made the amount due the contractors as per sd
But the amount rieitiaily andlcsay due him per
contract ~ ~
difference against pToperty;ownsT Of. Ss52 %
the Street Commissioner Tor rok and euro
aDd g"ey reset which items he wrongiay certified were m
cudcd the contract OF prices respectively OF ~ % per co
yard and 10 cents per nea foot and the remaining ' %
stuuy allowed by the ASSESSOR and assessed upon the pro
r' CASE SEVENTEENTH.
Setting curb and sg paving and TSnF s aynae @ rGn S
contractor and John T. Dodge The assessment list
,p,ount dne 10 be CONTRACTOR a. per ssd $50 40
But the rightly sd legally due him, ss per the
contract 0'''' -
Adieerenc. against property owner. S363l 50
which excess Of 80 s5 based by the assessors
upon bill rendered by the contractor for work done outside o
and the charge for which he swes TO be Just and ea
sonabe none OF whchwok vas returned oy ne on
ccp perhaps item of Hnq amounting in the bill to f1fo 81
which doubtless Included in th surveyors return OF wok
under contract and its insertion IN the b therefore, woaI %
ananouut to double charge But after allowing hs ol IN
70 account for which there nothing upon or the
returns and hc to have been added BY assessors
Tor the benefit OF tle contractor
CASE EIGHTEENTH.
Paving st,ug curb ane gutter and syine crosswaks in
Smith was the contPstor and John T Dodge surveyor The
assessment list cOrdrmedn November, 1856 The assessor.
But the amount rightly sud legally due him. per
tract, 'bi ~
difference against property holders Of S62i
Which TO the extent Of Sl6O made from extra
allowance by the Street COMMISSIONS for 80 feet Of wooden cu
vert built which he wrongflly certified embraced In
price of 81 per foot There data upon the
furnished the upon which 70 found the balance
Of the above 6i 70 and stands therefore
ks other preceding apparent rstuty to the contractor
This case exhibits assessment Of $s for inspection fees
where no inspector allowed by the ordinance.
CASE NINETEENTH.
Paving Thirty street Tenth Eleventh
Charles r. Doyln the Contractor and JOhu T. Dodge
veyo The assessment M confirmed IN December, 1850
The made the amount due TO the contractor sd
But the amount rgh;fuy and legally due him. az per
disereuc. r.f rrorey owners Of ...,... Sjij 10