Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1870-08-12

page SO, requires the commissioner "before they
shall erect any buildings, &c., they shall give
notice OF their intention TO erect such buildings
for at least six consecutive weeks, &C., and shall
hear all petitions for and remonstrances against
such proposed improvement" This section, we
had, has not In any particular been complied
with, no notice was ever given under II, and, as
remarked elsew here, the notice required In sec,
sof this same act was only published for four
weeks, anil no committee was ever called to-
gether as required bv sec. Of this act. att..
The bids were 70 be received for building the
new Jail up to the 20th Of April 1869, (the no.
tice given the 29lh Of March, 1902. The com
missiuners do not appear to have met on that
day, April 20, in session, but on the 9th Of May
they purpOrt IN have had meeting, and the re-
cord says 3. W. st. John and Yeager, commits
siOners, and j. u. Newton, auditor, were pres
ent. At this meeting the contract Of building
| the jqil was let tO Messrs. DOughton And Thurs
| tin. The journal is only signed by St. John
Mr.. Yeager testifi,s that he did not consent 10
this award, consequently the award is not ac-
cording to law. The contract appears to have
been made on the 18th day Of May; yet there Is
no proof or evidence that the matter was contin-
ued from day to dav until such contract was
made, as required by sec. 10 OF the laws but
there is positive record proof that the meeting or
session Of May 6, 1869, did ''adjouru sine die"
and did not continue from day to day. (See
journal N, page S2.) The contract does not ap-
pear to have been submitted to pros. attorney
and approved by him as required, sec. 10 OF law.
Feb. Q, 1870. George Weddell, county clerk
sworn by J. W. Ross, Notary Public, Wood
county, Ohio.
| Question Were you consulted in relation to
the plans and specifications required in sec, Of
law uf April q, 1889? Answcr-Never was con-
Il ll..1
sion. Do not know of any such consultation
ever being had j. D. Newton, au'litor, says he
has not the plans Of jail or COURTHOUSE in his
office; says further, he finds no bond for either
Jail or court-hnnse. Thinks there was bond
filed with the Jail bid, but do not know where 1t
is now. Do not know that there was any ap-
proval on the back Of the bond for jail contract.
| Never saw any bond or contract for building the
courthouse and none were ever h!ed in this of
| fee. E. Tuller. former probate judge, sworn.
Was probate judge to April, 1859. was never
called upon for consultation or acted on COM
mittee. j. A. Bonnel, ex-probate judge, sworn,
says: was probate judge from last of April to
Nov 1869, WAS never consulted pr acted with or
on n committee to examine plans and specifca.
tons or changing plans. G. W. Evers, sworn,
SAYS he was sheriff Of Wood county to I'd Tues
day of January. 1859. being in four years.
Thinks the courthouse contract was let in May
| 1859. Was never one OF a committee to consult
on plans and specifications Of Jail Or courthouse.
J. w. Brownsberger, sheriff. sworn, says he has
been sheriff Of county since first Monday Of Jan.
| 1859. Saws he has mover been called upon to
examine plans and specifications for court house
and Jail in official capacity as one Of n commit
tee 10 approve or reject same. Says he never
! has been called upon to consent ~ any change
Of the plans or specifications since the contract
was let.
The commission fnund IN the commissioners
report to you that they had paid out of the build-
I,,,rr f,nA That tlata a1 int Ia
reported expenditure we find to be follows:
Mar. 81 1869, paid W. A. Smith pt. pay
on iail plan ............ 500 90
April s. 1859, paid w. A. Smith pit. pay
on Jail plan. 49, ''....''.''''' 1877 ~
May ii. 1859. paid Ballard & Rood ont
| Of building fund ........... 1895 81
July 2, 1859, paid Boughton & II IN 5000 90
| Total ............... Sc ,993 40
Leaving discrepancy of SIS so which we could
uot fnd
| Knowing that il was generally understood that
new courthouse and Jail was in course Of
erection at Bowling Green, in which large out
lay WAS inevitable, we were surprised that the
| commissioners should be entirely silent on the
subject in their report to the court.
| We find two deeds on file in the auditors Of
| Gee dated Jan. 2S, 1859, from Alfred Thurs,in
and wife for four lots in Bowling Green, the con-
sidtration named being 5000. The character of
these deeds will be considered in another place.
We then examined the commissioners Journal
in full. and nowhere found word or entry in
relation to the courthouse. The auditor testi-
fies that there Is no contract on file in relation to
a courthouse and he never saw one, and there
is no order on commissioners journal in relation
to same. In relation to Jail, which is elsewhere
referred TO in detail, we find ths award WIS
made by one commissioner, St. John, on the 18th
day of May, 1859, in which the contractor was
TO have one-:ourth Of contract price when the
1 4 l..lE n..t IF
July, before the building was fairly commenced
they change the terms OF the contracts by jour
nal entry then made and pay Messrs. Bnughton
Il Thurstn $4,000 on same. They speak Of hav-
ing taken good security for the faithful perform
ance Of the work, but there is no bond or other
security TO be found in the auditors Office. In
relation to the Jail contract Mr.. st. John saws
| he supposed they acted under the old law. did
not know the old law was repealed at the timn.
Says the county owns lots l52, l53, lj4 and l55
in block 20 Bowling Green. Says he thinks the
courthouse stands on lots l53. l5i and l55, and
the Jail on 152. Says they examined the deeds
at the time they were given and did not discover
any defects or miss0ns. Thinks the deeds
we're good deeds in fee simple, says Russell and
him looked them over. Says all the lots were
donated. Says they thought at the time they
had the right tn take deed with revcrsionirv
clause in il. Says, we did not, as commissnn-
ers locate the court t-house. The Bowling Green
committee located it. SAYS, we have not taken
any steps in locating and erecting the court
house. Saws it was understood that the county
was to build a part Gf the courthouse. Says
they first levied s23,000 and afterwards rescnd-
ed $4,000, leaving $4,000. Could not say
whether they ever levied anything for Jail or not,
but thinks they did. After reading the journal
entry of March 3, 1868, he was asked if that was
not the only leyey ever made by them for county
buildings2 lie answered, after q careful exam
inatinn of their records in their journal, that he
did not find levy for anything else than the
| court house on their record. Saws he knew that
SIS 900 was paid on the Jail contract. Says the
contract was originally for the contractor to re-
ceiye one fourth of contract price when the con-
tract was half completed. Saws the contract
was amended The contract and specifications
were then handed for examination, after which
he answered that there was no amendment
among the papers. Says he thinks there was
an amended contract filed with the auditor.
| He was then asked tn ascertain if such an amend
ment could be found in the office. He after
wards said that the auditor informed him that
| il was Journal entry only. He said the notice
10 builders was the same as terms OF contract
one-fourth when the work was half done. II e
said the $1,000 ptid to Boughtou Il Thurstin
before the time agreed upon by the contract,
was 10 forward the work. After hearing the
| contract read he says; there seems To 5o-nO rea-
son fer paying as we did. He then was asked
why they paid SIS 600 for the Jail out of the court
|
at the time it was done, but dent know Of any
| law for it, and don't fisd any upon examination.
Mr. Newton says no amended contract was ever
filed with him, and he never say one. Mr.. NJ.
John was referred to the statute in 9. and G.
page $50 in relation to what is required to make
contracts valid, and if he know Of that law at
the time this Jail contract was made. He an
swered by saving he did. He then was asked
why they did not comply with it. lIe said he
did not recollect this sec. of the law He then
was asked il he nOw thought, after examining
their entries and order and the law. that they
had any right topay $4,000 for Jail nut OF court
house fund. He said he did not know .
In relation tU the time named in the notice foT
receiving bids, April 20, 1869, he says he thinks
Mr.. Yeager and him met but did not act as
board and did not adjourn. Says they were no
acting under the law Of 1869. Says Mr. Reid
told them they had the power to act any time NJ
the bids Says they paid BdughtOn & Thurstir
81 900 since the payment Of the $4,000, but hl
cannot find any order on tho journal or voucher
for it. Says lie knew Of the law when they
made the last payment to Boughton ThurstiD
Says that about 81 800 has been paid on thu
csnrt- house, and thinks Il was paid a year ag'