The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-10-17

proven that one night Edward snider on his way
nome from work, stopped at beer saloon at Third
and New streets. and found the defendants there,
who asked him to pay for their drinks In order 10
followed MIN and seized him by the throat, threw
him 10 the ground, and stole three dollars from him.
once Identified They ofrered no evidence in de-
fense The Judge remarked that IL young men
quences were sure to attend their rioteus conduct,
there would not now be so many youths In our
prisons lie sentenced them to three years in ths
County Prison.
Murder Trials.
During the session Of Oyer and Termner which
will be begun next Monday and will continue for
two weeks, homicide cases will be tried in the fol-
lowing order:-
october 24-Charles Max,
Patrick Callahan and Reddy Mullen.
John Welsh and James Donnelly
27-Mahoney and Claggett.
dennis Walton.
"-George Bakely.
s1-Golden and McClue.
CHARLES Hanlon.
"-Adolph Fisher.
No date-Virginia Hubert.
The House of Correction Contract.
Court of Common Pleds-Judges Allison, P.J
Judge Allison this morning gave the following as
his decision In the case OF the House OF Correction
William H. Cramer, for himself, as q competitor
for the contract for the building OF The House Of Cor
rection, and as Taxpayer, prays an Injunction 10
restrain the city OF Philadelphia from entering into
any contract with Richard j. Dobbrns for the ereo
award Of the Committee OF Councils.
The equity of the plaintiffs bill rests upon an ale
CATION that he is the lowest and best bidder for the
work which is proposed to be done in the erection
and completion OF the House Of Correction and that
the Councils OF the city OF Philadelphia, acting for
the citizens and payers OF the city, are required
to award the contract to the person VINO oilers to
erect the buildings for the smallest sum OF money.
The authority OF Councils to provide House of
Correction is derived from the first section OF the
under which s Tere nyea oy saa s9
To provide by ordinance for the establishment OF
House of Correction and Employment, and to erect
suitable buildings for the organization and manage
ment thereof" There is here no express restriction
placed on the exercise OF a discretion with which
the Councils are invested In carrying into erect the
law which gives to them power to erect House OF
| Correction. The Councils are not directed to
best bidder except as it is to be inferred from the
| general obligation to administer the trust, which
involves an expenditure of large amount Of money
| with due fidelity to those whom they represent. To
guard with care the interests OF the taxpayers OF
whenever they are required to appropriate public
money. An abuse Of this power when neglgently
or corruptly exercised may doubtless, be restrained
| and will be when a proper case is made out; but
| in the bill OF the complainant no such charge is
set up the afidavits in supportiof the bill contain
the afdavit of Mr.. Dobbins it is asserted that no
| consideration Of favoritsm personal, POLITICAL or
transaction This strips the case OF the plaintiff OF
the only ground on which he could stand in support
of his prayer for relief by Injunction. Nor caa the
act Of May 49, 1856, be called in to supply the weak
ness OF hts cause, by reason OF the unqualified terms
|
cited The act OF 1856 directs that contract shall
awarded to any but the lowest Bidder but this Court
in Gomy y Tne S m s
raj and annually recurring supplies of the city The
Interpretation is afterward given to the act OF
| 1856 by Judge Sharswood In Mcknight VS.. Kneass,
at Nsi Prius Legal Intetgencer of April 20 and by
Chief Justice Thompson, in Murphy VS.. The City,
| House OF Correction and Employment is a special
undertaking the act Of 1856 has no application
But on the merits we think the case is against the
plaintiff. The Committee Of Councils called for
tinct from the proposals for building, reservng the
right to reject all bids not satisfactory TO them Mr.
Dobbns offer is for the erection OF the structure,
$780, 900; for heating ETC., S99 3O0-making total OF
The plaintiff, MIR. Cramer proposed to put up the
buildings sSs9,s29 for heating. etc. slOs, 65256-
amounting together to 81 00S 9Sl 90 making diffe-
renee in favor of Mr. Dobbins OF s96s1'56.
The plaintiff contends, however, that as the call
for proposals for heating, ETC., distinct from the
offers to build, that Councils were bound to accept
the lowest bid for each separate undertaking, and
that j. ii. Sutherlaud's bid for heating and vent
lating s94,971, which, If added TO paintiTs bio
of ss99 1923, would make but S1937 that the con
tract ought not to have been awarded to Mr.. Dob
bins for sum which is $4,000 IN excrss OF these two
sumed obligation Of Councils to give the work tt
those who offer to perform It for the Lowest amount
separate offers are less than combined offer fol
both building and heating, etc.
We find no such requirement In the law; to holc
this would take from Councils all dlscretion leavt
them without power to discriminate between those
who offer to contract as to experience, executive
pecuniary ability, reputation and character as build
ers, and, perhaps, even as to the manner and pal
of heating and ventlating, the ways OF reachin,
this result varying as nearly all OF them do ther
being nothing before us to show whether the pro
possls were based on the same plan for heating ant
ventilatine or not.
An application was made to this court in Januar
last TO restrain the Board OF Health from giving
contract to whose offer for cleansing street
was larger in amount than that of plantif Tn
law required the award to be made made to tn
loicest and best bidder. We refused the application
on the ground that the board were authorized
exercise discretion in the selection OF the person
who offered to do the work. A few days later tn
same question raised before Chief Justic
Thompson, in the case OF Conner VS.. The Board O
Health, reported in the Legal Inteigencer, Januar
2s 1870 In which the same Interpretation was give
the law which had been placed on 1t by this cour
and the Injunction was refused.
In the case before US, the act does not, in term:
require that contracts shall be awarded to tn
lowest and best bidder but gives a broad power
erect the buildings, and there is not even a su'
pcion OF corrupt exercise OF the direction given
Councils, the preliminary injunc ton is dissolved.
The disease known as ship fever has ap
peared in epidemic form at Eau Claire
Wis.