The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-04-08

w - Nr.....u ~ III ~ . N p'
c Me,'Dpo,.ah pivisi3 % no >; o, II isst
n,aan. a. a.h Wo'Trny as' ~ ~, - W
RE- S,r,Gn M ~
Lsnborn; Chsplain. Dsyid Meintosh, Treasu.
Fsb, H Gondnn ,ard financial scribe, nos A.
Il. I,timcS, In scntin., Toa NJ wa,.nn,
Out. Sentinel, /. o. Kniftsr. f,bv Cesceps'
tjonJuetor. Mlss s.,.n MsGs.ains III. ~,
incl Mps IJ,,io rsnnn ~ MI ggg
Mary KHAN and Mia hIb, '1 Thy hss.s' Ths
oxercIses we're Of a va. in,.,as,Inp sS ~.
Ny i anse,e''"s e"A'"e'e''
TRuNKs.-Stephens & Co., No. $40 Pennsyl-
vania avenue, have Just received A large and
superior assortment of trunks, among which
may DO particularly mentioned the large mack.
Ing trunk, the ladies' Saratoga trunk, and The
soIe-ieathor trunk, together with cyery VARIETY
ofsatchels, travelling bags, and yalises for Ia.
dies, all OF which are offered at the very lowest
call and examine stock at stephens 4 Co, 4
..SS
THE COURTS.
acted on the following business yesterday:
THE CENTRE MARKET CASE.
Barron ct al. VS.. Corporation OF Washington.
on the proposed Centre MSfRet building, and
for damages alleged to be done by reason Of the
failure OF the Corporation to comply with a
contract made with the plaintiffs for erecting
the building 10 question.
MT, Phillips OPENED the case, The plaintiffs
would contend for lust compensation for all
the labor done and materials furnished at the
would have Injured 10 them as protits had the
contract been fully carried out, They claimed
~ Tls SO for work and materials under the CON
tract, t2,69i23 for extra work and materials,
and six or seven Thousand dollars estimate1
PROFITS. The iury would fnd that from Is to 80
per cent. on the whole was about a fair esti-
mate Of the profits Of contractors, when, as in
this case. the contractors Attended to the worry
themseiyes,
MI bradley. IT,. for the defenee. said that
popuiar. In this case the CORPORATION was
perfectly willing to pay every cent due the
.in , lot .ne,r ~, anu th anu
, nad PAID mem lot " ne aia n9t mink any
thing was due, but they were Wiling and mad
prSposeu 10 suomit me whoie conttoket . 10
hoit.nioh anu aoluc W tne result; put the
Ps.n .n1, hau refused 'h's o"er ana Drought
trstion did not exclude therefrom all estimate
Oh Hamnagess,. r T.. ,,,,,,,,,
Mt praaiey, )r;, alo not know.
,s MT rin,iIillps' mere IL l" IN your ia'hers
Mr. Bradley, IT,, would have been surprised
II the city oihcials had bound the people TO
Ply lot essma.eu Pron.s OF .nG eohtsae.ors
which the corporation.was as wiring 70 carry
out IS the contractors were, but which both
parties were prevented from completing by the
United states authorities. a.
Inc plaintlH mere caileu Mr. barron, VINO
proved contract between the corporation and
Messrs. barron, Smlthson ana DonsPhan 70
erect buildings centre market. The con.
tract was read. ~ purports to pc signed and
sealed by the contracting parties, but while
the corporation seal ls attached the contract
ors do not sign separately but the firm name,
"Barron, Donaphan Co." Is signed, and no
seal.mark,
Mr.. Bradley, jr., objected to the admission
OF the contract thus signed without seal as
evidence. 1t was ruled in by the Court, and
Mr.: Bradley noted an exception.
Mr.. Barron continued, and stated the various
items OF the work anu Materials the esti-
mated prime cost to the contractors, with the
price at which they were set down In the con
tract made win the corporation, together
with the estimated pront on esoh item: IN
the brick work no profit was estimated, the
main profits being made out OF the smaller
items. Tho sum OF the whole was that the
s3s 900, and that their estimate bounded on
sub-contracts) OF the cost OF the work to them
was about t3l 600, ahording net proht oil
F,0sl. They had received from the corpora
tion while the work was in progress " ,i5s.5 30,
and t2,Gl3o3 afterwards, making tlo,oIl.6s in
Mr.. Bradley, In the cross-examination,s sought
to show from the witness that the sub-con-
tractors had received payment from the cor
poration for these damages by the abandon
ment Of the work, the witness Insisting that
such damages had been paid by the plaintiffs.
Before the close of the examination OF wit
nesses, the case was postponed until this morn.
Ing.
PLEA OF PRIVILEGE,
+5i5. Andrew McKenna VS.. William Sprague,
Assumpsit for some 1900 for work and labor
done.
Defendant, by his counsel, tiles motion to dis
miss the suit because the defendant Is Sen
ator Of the United states from Rhode islant
| In attendance upon the Congress of the United
States