The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-08-02
OPENING THE KINGsBR1DaE ROAD.

The Surveyors Bill Against tho City
How the Bill Was Gut Down by
Referee and How TIE Surveyor Kicks
Against 1t.
In 1870. pursuant to previous act OF the Legisla.
turc, Commissioners were appointed for opening
the Kngsbridge road from 155th street to tho nar-
lem River. necessary part of the opening, OF
course, was to have a survey made and proper
maps prepared. This job was given by the Commits
slOners to Mr.. Edward Boyle, and he went
on and did the work and in due time put
in his bill. This bill was some $4,000.
and the same being considered exorhitant
the matter was referred to Mr.. william H. Prltch-
ard for examination. The result OF his examina-
ton was reporting favor of cutting the bill down
$4,000, to which MIR. Boyle now seriously objects
The case came up for argument yesterday in STU
preme Court Chambers before Judge Pratt, on q
motion to confirm tho referees report. There was
quite an array OF counsel present, Assistant Cor
pOrat:on Counsel Andrews appearing on behalf OF
Comptroller and Mr. Granville P. Hswe ss' taking
up the cudgels for the dissenting surveyor.
MIR. Halves claimed that Mr. Boyle was entitled to
have the amount OF the original bill under con-
tract made by the commissioners for the opening
at one cent per hundred square feet OF the assessed
area which, he claimed. was less than the ordinary
charge of S7ls cents per lot, anu was q proper
bargain; that in fact, the expense OF work in that
section OF the city was far higher than In other
sections where everything was laid out In
straight lines, and that Inc charges for extra
work were fully justified by the changes in tns
Commission and it's plans during the work. He in
sisted, further, that even under the contract.
Strictly and rgidly interpreted, the amount under
it would be over siXty-nine thousand dollars, ana
that the testimony before the referee was alto.
gether unsatisfactory and not at all establishing
that there was anything extravaganza.
Mr.. Hawkins, In reply said that Mr.. Boyle would
not suffer very greatly |! his claim were reduced
this amount lie had already, Tor similar work, re-
ccived from the city s2s7 ,0Oo ana in this matter
would receive handsome compensation
for the work done, larger by one-thlrd
ing to do the work for, and larger
rate than charged for the Public Drive which
was the continuation of the same road. He con.
tended that tho contract sci up was Of no effect
whatever. The law and ordinances fixed the rate
OF compensation Tor such work. and they could not
an improvident contract. But in the calculation
under it Mr.. Boyle had put In 25,0OO,OOo more reet
OF land than the Almighty allowed that section Of
the country, aud by redupllcatng 1t fvefold,
OF $l2,5OO in that item alone. Mr.. sage
had been asked to calculate carefully the
sum allowed by the law. His calculation brought
the amount to s3s, ooO The referee mad allowed
every reasonable claim for extra work, and 80 had
raised 1t to $50 2SS. They had put in q sworn bill
for $4,000 They had never till to-day heard OF
contract for 900. The referee had been very
liberal to Mr.. Boyle, and he was ast0unded to hear
any opposition fI0m him to the confirmation of this
report ,v
excluding the streets, and insisted that the con-
tract was within the amount dxed by the Ordt-
nance.
Mr.. Hawkins explained that while the old ordi.
nance gave three cents foot frontage, ana would,
where there were city lots already cut up and
fronting streets, amount to as much as or even ex-
coed, perhaps, Mr.. Boyle's charge, yet the upper
part OF the island being In large blocks or iarms
there was no such frontage to be surveyed and one
cent per hundred square feet far exceeded three
cents per foot frontage.
After hearing the argument Judge Pratt took the
papers, reserving his decision.