New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-08-11
HUDSON COUNTY INVESTIGATIONS

JERSEY CITYS BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS.
sruIous CHARGES AGAINST THREE OF THE COMMITS
sIONPRs-THHY ARE ACCUSED OF DEMANDING
AN INTEREST IN CONTRACT BEFORE AWARD
ING IT.
The Jersey City Board of Public Works is
again the subject Of charges The allegation IL that IN
1872 Messrs Bumsted Gillette and startup members OF
Board in that year, became Interested III cohac'
for lighting the Streets awarded by the Board 10 the
Fayette vapor Light Company and that they Insisted
upon having and received majority OF the Company
stock before making the contract It's stated that fhen-
ventor and patentee, Henry Fayefte intending 10 'c
his invention first In Jersey City put himself In the hhhds
of persons who prOfessed to De able to secure contract
for him Through these persons, Alexander W. HATTIE,
David b. Bridgeford, and Michael Nathan an interview
was arranged between Fayee and President Gillette VI
the Board OF Public Works. and at that interview, II IL
aaid the terms upon which contract could he obtained
were settled They were, In biiei, as hiieeed' '"at
Fayet.e shoud content himself with one-fourh OF the
stock OF the Company and that the remainder should
be divided between the Commissioners named above
and the men who had been instrumental In bringing
abon the arrangement TIE suggestion OF this settle
ment Is said TO have come from Commissioner Bumsed
who maintained that Fayette would thus ieceive suil
Gent equivalent view Of the introduction OF his inven
ton public Fayette assented and contract was
made for certain number Of lights at S24 year each
This price was subsequently increased to $50 year In
the past seven months S2o5o' ~ mas peeh Pu W 'e
Company
Fayette failed In the meantime and was forced to sell
his stock which wac bought by his Observation-Disclosures
at something less than 20 cents on the dollar, leaving
him without any further interest in the Jersey City con
tract. Thereupon James :. Walker OF New-iork, who
claims to hold unpaid notes Of Fayete to the amount OF
$4,000 brought suit against him. on the ground that
the assigumento his stock IN the Fayette Vapor Light
Company fraudulent and without consideration
The suit brought in the New-fork superior Court
hlN /tIu
statute in order 1t Is alleged to evade the Ne"trsey
laws An order obtained from Judge Splcr for an
examination. under which the testimony OF Fayette,
Nathan and Harris has been taken thls far.
Henry Faycte testified that lie Is the patenee OF the
Fayctte Vaior Light; that the Company was org nized
permanently with capital stock Of 5000 IN J1ty
lete Bunsted and startup OF the Board OF Public Works
OF Jersey city each OF whom received ios per cent ni
Brdgcford who together received 1854 cent and the
witness who retained 20 per cent That the above named
members Of the Board OF Public works exacted this al
lotnent VI shares condition Of making contract for
the yallOr light that the first meeting Tor the Orgtza
ton of the Company held at the house 81 either
of them together with Janes H. Startup who rep
resented commissioner statup his father, and Messrs
Br,igeford Harris Nathan and the witness, were pres
enl at that meeting and that the agreement for that con
tract then made that the shares were suDre lenty
transferred H the Office OF James H. Startup, al no lol
Chambcrs-st., NewYork to James H. sartup for Com
missioner StaItup, to Is. W. Gillette for C9mise oner G
lctte and John soper surveyor OF jersey Cty Tor
Commissioner Bunlsted; that witness received no
money other consideration for these sharcs II stock
eAcejt the award Of the contract for lighting street
LAMPS ia Jersey City, did h take any receipt from
them the first contract for 200 lamps for one
year ga caci and that tue contract was aitcrward
extended either three 1--WE years, AT S3t year Tor
each lamp; that the profit on tie contract Is over % per
cent; that at the time Of making II hessrs.
Gillette, Startup, and Bumstcad were Emembcrs
OF the Board OF Pubac Works OF Jersey CITY; that
MessIs rdeford, Nathan aud Harris knew al the tIc
upon what terms the contract WAS giNcu hat witness Is
connected nitn the Company but Il silll inter
cscd in patent rights outside Of Jersey CITY; that the
money witness obtained from Walker WA used partly IN
the ioundcry business and partly in experimenting III
patents and that he now owns no real or personal prop
crty in the city of Scw-iork.
Michael Nathan confirmed the testimony OF Fayette M
10 the div NJ stock; he said that Brdgei0rd and
Harris given him onethird or their lSf per cent,
which he sold Samuel McRurney Of Jersey CITY, ana
JOHN Snper had been present a one meeting OF the
Company as the representative of W. "a. Bunlstchd.
that OF Fayctic and Nathan in al important points o
rarsfcrrcd he had learned from samuel McBurncy
that he tAc,urncy) had bought b. W. Gettes stocka at
par. giving therefor certain real estate; that
witness afterward negotiated q sale OF the same
stock for cash at par from McBurney TO George
somers jersey City; that when transferred II was III
dors by Gillette. and that be learned from McBurney
that the real estate which the latter for the stock
was transferred the Of NJ H. Gillette President oil
the Board Public WorAs witness Thought tDat net
cash dividends profit the contract had been paid UP
to JAN 10, 1879 tie amount OF either Az or % pea
cent and he had 10 anticipate any less dyi-
drnd hereafter the profits Increase with the number
OF lamps and Ill the preliminary expenses had been