New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-30
.ss4.Os5 73 s33,5D4 so

amount than that of said Leahy hereinafter mentioned
should ne DESTROYED put ill., aud the per
sons whose names are 10 the plaintiffs unknown. as
Id, who had Intended to pare and put in bids
as Aforesaid. dd omit " prepare aud put IN tue same
BIDS DESTROYED.
That, after the said OF said BIDS the de-
PENDANTS did destroy and fail put before said Con-
tracing Board OF the said bids surrendered to
them as aforesaid far and reasonable and
lower III amount than that OF said Leahy hereinafter
set forth.
That said defendants thereupon put bid for sail
Work, III the name Of the defendant L:ahy the com
pcLsatOn rate SJGQJ1 Der anuum for kerpiur SAID
section IN repair, together with OF said pur-
chased bids larger In than slid bid VI
saId Lcahy.
That said rates prices in said bid of said Lcahv
were largely IA excess Of the fair value OF san work
aud largely in OF each any olds so sur
rendered 10 the defendants aud destroyed
and largely excess OF the prices al which SAID per
sors who failed and omitted TO prepare put IN bids
would have agreed 10 40 said WORK. had 1t for
the ron -fu ana fraud acts of the
That tine sad Contracting Board, on sad Dec. %,
1866, opened and cdUydssed all the bids put In as
aforesaid, and being OF said fraud and OF tue
TACT that certain Dlds at far and prices
lower III amount than the bid OF SAID ahy, any
the bis 80 put in. had been purchased aud suppressed
aud destroyed as aforesaid aud OF all the raudu-
lent acts of the deieudants. did day award the
contract Tor SAID repairs OF the Chcmung Canal and
feeder TO the dcendaut Leahy, under said biz for
nye years NON jan l. 1861 at tne sum Of $4,000
num- Ihat the contract hercunto annexed was there
Hon entered INTO DeI"een the palndHs and the said
J. dhy.
That or about December 81 1856, said defendant
Leahy assigned SAID contract to tne defendant Lord.
and That SAID Lord took sad assignment with lull
knowledge OF all sad fraudulent and that SAID
tract has beea performed and mas pred its
Limitation. and mat inc plaintiffs have paid 10 said
Lord, under said contract, the sum OF $4,000.
That $4,000 per annum would have been and Is a
fair price Tor keeping in repair section, and that
the plaintiffs wond have made "a contract price
had not been Tor the aforesaid fraudulent "a the
defendants
That by OF the aforesaid fraudulent acts OF
the defendants. the plaintiffs Lave been damaged the
OF $4,000, tor which and Cf they de-
maud JUDGMENT against the defendants. And that the
paInlh have execution therefor against persons
the several defendants, after against their
property j. returned ulh ttished"
FRANCIS c. BARLOW,
Attorney General, Plaintiffs Attorney.
second suit brought by Attorney General
Barlow against Geo. ID. Lord, William Mudgett and
Others for cODspTing at the same meeting to prevelt
the award OF a contract to the lowest bidder by pay
ing large Of money to rival bidders so that the
contract was awarded to Stephens 10 make repairs on
Section No. of the Erie Canal al $4,000 per annnm
and to drcdgc out Albany basin at the price of 70
cents cubic yard for excavation, rates largely in
of fair prices. The former contract ran five
years, amounting to S3j0,000; and under the latter
Gale, Bclden, and DcDisOn took out jl0,1SS cubic
yards of excavation, being paid 1851 132. Suit is
brought for The difference between that sum and
fair prices that might have been obtained if the
tract had been honestly awarded, viz, S32S,jGG.