New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-07-09
THE NEW COURTHOUSE FRAUDS.

CUMMINGS II. FUCKER, THE FORMER sUPERINTEN-
DENT, SUED FOR $442, O13 12-PAIsE BILLS AND
FALSE COMMISSIONS on THEM.
Gen. Francis c. Barlow, in the name OF the
Attorney General. has begun suit In the Supreme
Court against Cummings ii. Tucker, the superintendent
OF the building OF the County Courthouse from May,
1865, to July, 1860. The nominal claim against him s
S442,0I3 IL, made up Of eight items.
The complaint after setting out merely formal matters.
rectes the agreement made by the Supervisors on the
3Oth of May 1863 with Tucker, making him their pur-
chasing agent except where previous contracts had been
made, and then superintendent Of materials and work
for the County Courthouse, agreeing to pay him every
two weeks the bills approved by him, and per cent on
the materials and labor used as his compensation
The complaint then makes the following formal allega-
ton "And the plaintiffs further say that or about
day OF June 1863 defendant Tucker consph1ng
and colludng with John Kcyser James H. Ingcrsoll and
other persons unknown 10 the plaintiffs, and with intent
TO cheat and deaud the people of the State Of Newiork
and said County OF New-York. procured said John H.
Keyser TO make certain bill accounts in the name
OF Keyser Company, in and by which 1t was repre-
scented and pretended that said Keyser Co had fur
nshed in and about the construction Of said New County
Courthouse divers materials. and done and performed
certain work Of the nature OF plumbers gashters ana
stove manufacturers work and materials of Tie vaue OF
$25.OlO o."
The document then gives certificate by Tucker that
the materials and had done and furnished and
declares that such certificate made TO procure the pay
of the hill that IL in consequence OF such GER
t;fcate duly audited and approved by the Supervisors;
that such audit and approval the bill was paid and
thai such bin false and fraudulent and mainly
fictitious the actual work and materials represented
exceeding IN value ST OOO and that Tucker
knew facts and aiterward claimed and received his
five per cent commissions on the whole.
In the way the compliant sets ont a second cause
Of action, Andrew j. Carey being in this the
eOnsaIor the dS.e of tie bill June TO- 1869 the noni
nal occasion for IL plgstcring ard mason work the
amount S3O3S3 So while the genuine items of the
cOnnf not more thin 81 200
third specification is in the form the second.
the date being the same the amount S29,324 Co. ana the
part conceded 20 be genuine NOT over $500.
The fourth charges Jams H. IngC:SO, as The cOcOnspTa
tor bill ucug made out III the name Of C. d. BollT
q Co. a dctitou. firm for s12S469 -. for furniture aud
fixtures. dated June 1863 and Ike genuine prt not
exceeding ~ 900
The fiiln similar hill az the same date in the
name cf nceIsu & Co. for $9O.923 40 for nrtur. and
fixtures. &c genuine portion not exceeding $4,000
The sixth Charges Mob. Davidson the consirator
in bill % 1869, fOl ,fs 10 the extent OF $50,
300 ON which. however only S2U011 was paid, ard Of
which not to exceed ~ 5000 was genuine.
TIE seventh returns TO James IL lnS"rsol a the co
constructor Il bill of j. i. Smith, iCtitlGus person.
for 71Ccj 81 for carpets and shades OF whlc. less than
~2io0O is allowed genuine
The eighth charges Archibald Hall ir. as the cocoon
spTGtOT, Hi for $4i.-JG 10 dite, jane 10 1862
:0r painting and glazing which only $1,000 is al
lowed genuine. Oh al! these bills t charged Tucker
drew his percentage.
The claim o; the State j. for the following amounts with