New-York daily tribune., 1858-02-02
MORE OF THE CENTRAL PARK.

The Standing Committee on Frauds of the Board
Of Aldermen, met again in the Library yesterday,
Aid. ADAMS in the Chair. As soon as the Committee
had organized the Chairman stated that no cases
would be entertained until the reported by Mr.
Cobover, and then under investigation, should have
been disposed Of He directed all having new cases to
present them by petition, through the Board OF Al
dermen.
The investigation of the Fifty-fourth street
then continued. Mr.. C.. +. LAIGHr was called. He
testified that he had been overasessed to the amount
of S225
Mr. WALTER f. PINcKSEY was called in relation TO
bis proposal to return portions of the assessments. lie
stated that he Clerk in the Assessments De
partment, and that he was directed to examine the
books. He did so, and notified the contractor, Mr.
Farley to return the excess Farley paid him the sum
of S946 %. The contract was awarded to MIR. Mount
JOY and subsequently transferred to Farley. On the
papers both names appeared while there was con,
siderable difference in the amount OF their original
bids. The witness received the money to pay away
ard had done so in several cases. The Others could
be paid if they called
MIR. MoryrJoY was called He said he received the
contract at IS cents and assigned 1t to Mr. Farley
He declined telling what he received for the contract
from Mr.. Farley, any further than to acknowieoge
that he received an equivalent. He could not teh
why the contract had not been awarded 10 MI
Gallagher at 20 cents, nor TO Mr.. Ellis at o3 cents
Ex-AldeIman Monaghan was called 10 reia'loh 10
Mr. Pnckney's proposal to return portion OF the
money Mr.. MoyAGHAS was at the time Chairman Oi
the Committee Assessments. AS soon as the error
were discovered he called upon Mr. Farey 10 re'snd
the money. Mr. Farley acknowledged that ne ned
been oyerpad ard said he was " short, but "ould
return the money sOOn Mr.. Farley was called upon
several times and finally he gave the money 10 hr;
Pinckney The witness thought the money ,DOuIu
have been returned TO the Bureau OF Arrears IL was
not paid there however, because they would not re-
ceiye any less than the whole amount, Whlch "ou"
have been several dollars more.
The witness thought the city loet great dsa Ilyu
he fact that there were means provideu IoI tilo
committees to visit localities IN whlcn Work "d uo'
The consequence was that many WORKS "e,e ~. Ga
amined and the committees hau " toAe sI' 20? a.
ments "a thew came from the surveyors ana DIS e1-
neence led him 10 believe that the surveying system
was the most corrupt Of any IN the country ana, De-
s;de that he believed the surveyors were dlsnonest'
He wished 10 state in conclusion tha' ne DeeVed MI
Pipckney was perfectly honest IN wnat ne nad done IN
II was here considered important that Mr. Rodgers,
~ 80 ,be Contract Clerk in the Street Department
". ~ ,;oa The contract was made should be exam
"a hnt nm inquiry il was discovered that he he'd
gone South. .,... eu.
IN fourth street. He said he had resided in that
y;cnity 25 wears and familiar with the work that
bad been done. The filing in required Il feet,
and he knew that between Fitythird street and Lex
;nrtou avenue II filling in was not more than feet.
He understood too that former contract had been
made 10 fill in there, but il had not been done, al
though Mr. Ellis, brewer there, had paid 80 for it,
The advertisement for the work was read, and
sbowe that the specifications required that the filling
in of the sidewalks should be nine feet. The Fifty
case was then adjourned until the attend
snce Of Mr.. Farley and the Surveyor and Inspector
could be secured.
in relation to the Fifty secOndstrset case. 1t wa.
con6ruatOry OF the verbal statements made at the
former meeting. The Committee then adjourned 70
! Ttstsdsy next at p. On.