New-York tribune., 1876-09-29
THE COURTS.
IEMPsTEAD RESERVOIR
wSEx coNTRACrORs SUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF
RnooK1,YN TO RECOVER $17S,OSO

HEMPSIEAD hESEhFOlh
w1Ex coSTRACrORs' SUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF
BRooKLYN TO RECOVER $l7SOSO.
The suit Of Messrs. Kingsley and Keeney,
ootuncors for the Hampstead Reservoir, against the
S NJ Brooklyn TO recover S17S000 claimed to be still
Nne ON their contract came to hearing yesterday aer
nom In Brooklyn before the referees J0hn A. Lolt
THOMAS H. Rodman and George Fl. Fisher Corporation
Counsel De WITT Jesse johnson, and John T. Parsons
nnesred for the City Of Brooklyn and the plaintiffs
were represented by b. f. Tracy and JOshus NJ van
oOtt Mr. Tracy opened the case for the contractors
th brief review OF tho circumstances under which the
rearyor was conrac ed for and stated that there was
due the plaintiffs $4,000 retained by the city as Sc
cuity for the final completion Of the work. ana ID aua
ton thereto the sum Of $4,000 $4,000 Tor WORK
mos included in the monthly estimates OF the engineers
but which should have been included IL was Ior 'nee
..ns that the action was brought by the plaintiffs
Gen slocum, President OF the Department OF PuDho
works Of Brooklyn having been subpenaed, produced
the contract between the city and Messrs kingsley anu
Keoney which Gen Tracy thereupon offered IN evidence
Mr. Parsons moved two objections The hrst was that
te contract spoke of plans and specifications as part OF
ths contract and these not offered with the con-
tract The other objection was that the contract had
oeep altered After an argument The contract was aa
mitted in evidence
Gen sloeum then produced what purported to be the
monthly estimates and final estimate OF the work'
Alter aTsment and examination OF Gen. SlOculn'
fbe monthly estimates at length admitted as eV
dCnce Gen Tracy next offered the dna oernnealS ~
evidence Judge Lott regarded the point here involved
az of great Importance and the council proceeded 20
argue t. Mr. Van C0tt for the planthis heiu that @ o
engneer must from the nature OF his position nave the
best means OF knowing just what work had oeen uOo,
Indeed be was only person who could KNOW ~ was
Imnossbe for person who only the excavations as
thew AT present were, 20 form an idea OF the w0Ik
dome That could be only decided by the pf0hles
made by the engineer and calculations based upon n III
Mr. Parsons, for the city, argued against th5 H.
of the certificate ia evidence The particulars OF the
work done claimed by the defendants 70 De iaSe
Wnat then pr0posedf Not 20 PSt nlr Au,is' 'I
chief engineer on the stand Mr.. PrO5ascO the resi-
dent engineer not to take the testimony o WITNESSES,
buf 10 Introduce this final certificate, signed indeed Dut
without proof OF value in the premises. III was NV NV
shown that Mr.. Adams had even been 10 bhe @ m
had taken the testimony OF Others The eontract was
binding by Of the signature OF the i S9
Roard of CITY Works, William a. Fowler The monthly
estimates were signed by the president OF ths OOaIG
and Al did not appear that the engineer had any suSh
DC erz ms were claimed for him by the counsel tor tho
plaintiffs The OF the day was consumed IN lr tner
arguments upon tho admissibilty Of the paper. ino
,erePs desired time TO- dehbcratiOn and the nearing
was adjourned until Tuesday at 10 O'Clock, WIN tiio
case will be continued in the Common C0unc ChaInoeI
IN the Hall.