New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-02-24

any were etolsni A comparison was here Instituted
between tie fgures contained in ale Sed coDy Of
the assessment roll with those in Mr.. ConoyeJ: 70
port, and they found to correspond; 4 | an will
ling to swear tina. this document IL correct copy OF
the Assessment roll.
Mr. Leggst an aitache Of the Stree. Comm ,soner
Office te-t6ed that the copy produced was ao exact
transcript Of the assessment roll 10 the Fifty sec md
street matter, ard that NJ. Dojse's signature with
which he wes acquainted, attached TO the original
The Committee then took up the fraud in the
regulating, curbIng and guttering Third avenue from
Sixy-frst 10 Eigh'y-sixth street Edward Boyle the
Surveyor Of tie work, wa tho first witness. lie
stated that PC was appointed Surveyor OF the work
the 80 Of DecembeT 1850; on the 7th OF December
the specifications were issued from the Street Depart
ment, and on the 18th Of December the contract was
let to Bernard Callahan. and J. w. Delshunt was ap-
pointed Inspector; Callahan failed to perform the work
ana the matter was allowed to lay over until October
ls16 ID the specification the witness stated that there
was clause written by him that the price for curbing
and guterng must include the necessary excavation,
but by this he did lot intend 10 have it understood
that such excavation was contemplated; the speci-
hcation abo said that the price per square foot for
haggng must include the regulation Of the side walks;
by an Examination of the profes from the Office of
the Street Commissioner, the witness showed tina. IN
the vicinity OF Hamilton square, along the route
OF the contract, there was in some places az
high 81 twenty-one feet Of earth unsupported
on either side sf the treet and he stated that during
the ten months that iIteryened between the date OF
Calabans contract in December 1852 and October
down from Hamilton square into the street; had Cal
lahan performed his contract the witness said that
there would have been no iced OF allowing anything
for excavation except for the ROCK which When tn9
specifications were made out he did not think existed
when the contract was given to Mr.. Devlln Mr. lay
lor said that ne should hold Galatians sureties &C
countable for the difference between his ana oeVnn
bids The witness was asked i he had a copy OF inc
foures of the assessment roll returned by him to the
Street Department. lie stated that he had at his
Office and would produce them.
Mr. Copoyer took tie stand. lie stated that two
sets of specifications made out with reference to
this work one signed by NJ. Furey and the other by
Mr.. Taylor These were compared at subsequent
stage Of the proceedings, and were found to vary IN
trifipg amounts. The witness stated that the
upon Which he had based mis- calculations was hat of
Mr.. Taylor he stated this TO show that the case as
he reported It TO the Board January % correct,
30 far examination of the books and papers was
concerned; the following day Mr. Boyle had informed
gentleman in the Street COMMISSIONER Office (5ubse
queuty stated by the witness to be Mr.. Kingsland)
that the figures made out in the assessment roll as
reported by witness were net as they were made out
in bis (Boyles return; that instead Of psi cubic
yards, there was only l,285s cubic yards;
that instead of $50 cubic yards of rock it should be
only 81 and that instead of 500 cubic yards Of earth
filling, it should be only 500: These figures were
were statedby Mr.. Boyle Mr. Conover here produced
the assessment roll to which appended the return
Of Mr.. Boyle. He called the attention of the Com
mittee TO the evident alterations of the figures. The
the second and third instances had been prefxed.
To make the deception the more complete the closely
ruled parallel red lines which had been made by Mr..
Boyle on which to write the figures, had been bung-
liDgly extended. The witness stated that he had
idea by whom the alterations had been made but that
the increased assessment growing out OF this fraud
would make difference of 300 cost tothe property
holders.
Mr.. Boyle examined the returns. He stated that
the figures 1851 he recognized. The 4 preceding he
did not, however did he the 81 preceding the 81
and the 500 They were not his.
Joseph 7. Simpson stated to the Committee that he
had discovered some ncoDgruities in the amount of
assessment. -Four lots the corner of Third avenue
and Seventy street had been assessed Sl95 60
and four the of Seventy street $2l3 20
while four belonging him the corner of Sxty-frst
street had been assessed only $97 l-about half the
assessment of some of bis neighbors.
Mr.. Mcneil one of the Assessors, was subse-
duently called but as the assessment books were
locked up he unable TO give any explanation of
this matter.
The Committee then adjourned to Thursday at
o clock.