New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-01-26
FRAUDS In CONTRACTS.

|
OrrIcE, EFw-YoRK, Jan. 81, 1853. {
Tothe Honorabehe Com-on Counet@ the Chycf Nec York
In continuance Of the investigation announced in
hs regular quarterly report on the llth inst the I'M
dersgned has now to lay before your honorable body
the following additional cases. illustrative of the loose
and irregular system under which fraud and other
illegal transactions have heretofore been practiced
upon the public treasury and individual property
owners; aud he further begs leave respectfully to
company the same with some suggestions respecting
check future upon the transactions Of contractors
with the Street and other Departments:
CASE 1.
Regulating and grading Fifty-seventh street from
Eighth to Ninth avenues. Proposals advertised for
by the Street Commissioner, Sept. g, 1850 Specif-
cations of work rock excavation, earth excaya-
ton and earth filing Peter Connolly, the lowest
bidder proposed to do the work follows Rock ex-
CayaOn for nothing; earth excavation, at - cents
per cubic yard earth filling for nothing Estimated
cost of the work under his bid would amount to
81 800. Contract was awarded to him Sept. II, 1857
The ordinance Of he Common Council did not
HOrice The oPp0ntmem Of an inspector on the Work.
Connolly subsequently assigned his contract to
Charles Deyin. On the completion of the work, the
Surveyor returned amount of work done as follows
Rock awaited ...-......"....l,S0o cubic yards
Earth excavated and filled n......S 195 cubic yards
And the Street Commissioner wrongfully certified
the following, the specifications OF the contract, viz
Rock excavation a.........-..Sl - per cubic yard
Earth excavation at..--....... 3Oc per cubic yard
Upon this misrepresentation from the Street DE-
partnent and this supeuous return of work by the
surveyor the cost of the work figured up to
$j,46-whch sum the Controller paid to Devlin,
with a further amount Of S57l % to Others for the
sundry expenses OF surveying inspection, advertising
assessing and collecting.
As by the terms of the contract nothing 10 be
paid for rock excavation or earth filling, it
necessary for the Surveyor to the S0j cubic
yards OF rock excavation, and erroneous to in
clude the earth excavation and filling in
ment for by so doing the filing was paid for as we'll
the excavation. And So also, his return Of rock ex
cavaon, besides being unnecessary, afforded the OPP
pOrtunity for oyercharge whether through over
sight design upon the basis Of the false return BY the Street
ced that Notwithstanding the appointment OF an inspector was
specifically by the ordinance of the Common Coun
c appointed and the amount paid tor his services was
slso 1850.
made Connolly and the upon which settled
De,n be fairly stated $500 against the property
CASE
Paving Forty eshth street from Eighth to Ninth avenue
Proposals this work ESTIMATED 90 square YARDS adj
by the Street Commissioner stiPuatins hat he
The fitting and repairing The mdnho Charles Devln "a the
awarded and confirmed to him for said paving at 2 cents per
square yard to include all other necessary work On the com
peon the WORK tue Surveyor returned the following WORK
doue 2i4 square yards OF paving go cubic yards OF
earth filling S5 SQUARE feet OF bridge one Iaas cSs
falsely certified that the specifications OF the contract
Rock excavation 81 cents per cubic yard
Earth filling 10 cents per cubic yard
Paving % per square yard
The opportunity for argument tempt
ngly displayed in the Surveyor return and Sset COMMITS
certificate only partially svaed OF by Devin as he
limited bis claim the Controller to the legitimate CONTRACT
the contrsc 39 S625 80 amounting together to the
sum OF Sl,S2 50, which the Controller paid ,,,
How happens that the Assessors dresaded both the return OF
the Surveyor and the certificate FROM the street Depsrmen ~
the and prices work done and permitted
the contractor to aris9se both TO SUIT himself VII 'o
ros remoted ara 2,d9S slone. ~ ' ~ ,b
the contractor Inc surveyor eluIueu such ~ 70.
Stet es en- leu .a ss ~; :. S - IL 81 ,,d
b so s p ,rT rey,TneS by tbe Surveyor And WHY
H. that in hi. nartcns case the result was more favor.
Abe 10 the popy owners than II might have been owing no
uou", rs.Iel 20 aPaI b. r. .s.s.or. m, nou5,b
van s; Oi & t Il; tI inance m. princpIe in
vowed msy )u'' IS teaoNS 'ea' 10 '"'''0a' ~ III 0'"'
~ Ten. ,;,, 1, b .hove s,.nsn, /. correct in ali
particulars. the la. CO.. yards filing an oSschsss ,h e.
.s r,,rn ubch mad the an onnt ony go ysrd, To
make the 20 down il 1. presumed with the
tTocr it was accom- panied following bill and affidavit:
Corporation City OF New'fork n.
ciy Comfy q He io,t .ch'lle. Deyin being daily
ns Of Fortyghh street between Eighth and Ninth
that be furnished labor and materials the above amount,
the prces cbaraed therein arr sr and reasonable
"' P'''' fsi,nadl CHARLES DFyIIN
Sworn 70 before me this 10Th day OF November 1856
Ns'
CASE III. ,,-,.. -
Second Lexington and Aa1sns Thdsvenue side
walks between Iwentyhird and Twenty 'treet' IA.
made with George Mountoy Sept aud the
cost amounted to s5sl 81.
Faggns five feet wide sidewalk OF Fifty
,HorsS no @ and we copi. VS. made with Chare,
Deyin Dec IS 1916 and the cost OF the work amounted to
S745 So
These two las, contracts were clearly Illegal made in yio
atou OF law
,s -. "a a., ~. g.. ,r,, .;,,,....o If
~ au a I ~, "a 30,
dong 9: won adv'Ii.sd az The xos 70 Sc done