New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-09-25
TIE COURTS.
TILE FIRF.ALARM TELEGRAPH.

THE FIRE.ALARM TELEGRAPH
An apnlication has been made in the Supreme
Court Chambers by the Cleveland flreAarm w. i
an Injunction restraining the Board OF Metropolitan f
Commissioners and Charles T. Chester ana Jonn AZ
chester from communicating contract entered into Do
them for the furnishing the Metropolitan Fire
Department with system OF Flre-Alarm TelegraPat
apparatus The plaintiffs aege tna1 ON advertised for
bids for such system the machinery, po,e%s hest
and several aisSG%sn' sv 20 That the plaintiff
received "A copy Of the specifications from Ihe @ 20
Of the a fe pa some Of IFS chief and
vital points, the system known as the ,hnr hdders
Alarm Telegraph" thus excluding all other hs
That naintiT protested against this and Informed tne
Fire commissioners that II they would require All S
to estimate upon all the patented systems Pann MDuu
soners acqaesced in this proposal and put IN 0a 70
furnish tre-aarm telegraph for s75ooo That sIose
t 20 Charles r Chester and John NJ. Chester ioT
.ssSG That the I'D D Dat put and ID plaintiff Was
therefore entitled to the contract; that Tue pnoo ~
sons who own and control the patent OF the Anerea
Fire Alarm Telegraph, and as the pahtn ,or s
Chesters are connected in business with the propeoos
of the Fire Alarm Telegraph. and bid was put IN as
cover for and in pursuance Of an aIrangemeni WIN ht
SS ina Fire. Board or
auce of all unlawful understanding % T aI
arrangement with tho propretors OF the Alarm le
erronh and the Chesters prepared their advertisements
ynd specifications with the intention OF prevehtns
petition for said contract and nave gwen siu , =,
10 the Chesters or the persons whom they represent
large price much more than the work was worm, anu
that In pursuance OF such corrupt ana ~, ,he
ton the contract awarded as aforesaid that tue
price named In said contract is unfair ahd uch at ~
than any system OF fire alarm Telegraph III I'll. u1
should aud would cost II competition were aLoWeu'
and that the said price is too much by at sVoo
That Committee OF the Board Of Fire Commissioners
reported favOrably to plantns system Du, n ip
standing this report the Commissioners made tue con
tract aforesaid That before the award OF the contract
plaintiff asked the Commissioners 20 have pubic tfhi
to test the efficiency OF his system ana inc other
70 which request the Commissioners PAID no regard an
affidavit OF Patrick DAILY was submitted Whch tcail'n
that the proprietors Of the American tireAarm lele
graph Company had been trylhs i3t Iout }es1 ~ ~
tins contract aud that the price charged Oy lhe -
about 100000 too much, That FIRE COmns5loners houcy
and Enes told deponent they were convinced " "aS
swinde to pay $4,000 for fire alarm elegrhpn ING
defendants the Cheter aver that they are not engaged
in business with any other person That the} are Tue
for pd he tnbe sHss tent. OF % alarm
and that they in perfect good faith, aud with
out combination with any person OF peI'ons'
Fire Commissioners others. put IN bid for said con
tract That their system Of telegraph for this city sthe
most perfect aud reliable ever Invented or introduced
which this city have been assigned Ia them nat tho
plaintiff cannot build construct such perfect system
OF Fire Telegraph they can That their place OF
business In not In the same place as ht OF the ptoo
TORS OF the American Fire Alarm Telegraph; aud that the
allegation that their bid was put ~ as cover Tor anu ~
pursuance OF, arrangement Win slch piOptotois
false That the allegation that the Prc Comms ones
had an unlawful with the propreors OF
fhe American Alarm Telegraph aud the defendants
Chesters with OF giving said contract 10 the de
PENDANTS, Chesters or any ono represented by them'
is so far relates TO the Chester false and untrue
that the price IL not larger than Is required Ia
Introduce such valuable system OF Geography thht
the same system has been introduced into New orleans
and other cities years and although several valuable
patents been obtained since that Time the system
contracted for Ia New York much superior 10 any city
IN the Unlon and the price paid for the same Is higher
than that agreed To be paid Tor IN New York The argu
ments OF counsel ON the points advanced by the pAb
and defendants will probably consume the better part o
two days.