The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-09-29
THE COST OF A RESERVOIR.
Kingsley AND KEENEy'S LdWsUIT
no RECOVER SI7S,OOO.
The Bic Bonanzn that the Brooklyn Ring
Never Helped to Put rhrough-A CITY ON
ciaI Giving some Points to the Plaintiffs.

The Bic Bonanzn that the Brooklyn Ring
Never Helped to Put rhrough-A CITY Om-
ciaI Giving some Points TO the Plaintiffs.
The trial OF the suit of Kingsley X Keeney,
the Hampstead Reservoir contractors, against
the city Of Brooklyn, for $l1S0OO, alleged to be
due to them under their contract, was begun In
BROOKLYN, yesterday, before the referees, ex-
Judge John A. Lott Geo. H. Fisher. and 1hos.
A. Rodman. Gen. Tracy, In opening tor the
plaintiffs, said that under the law OF 1871, au-
thorisne the building Of the storage reservoir,
tho plaintiffs made n contract under which they
had done work amounting to 81, 100000 In 1874
they we're instructed to stop oil other work and
build a dam for the reservoir. In 1873 IL was dis
covered that the original APPROPRIATION. sl4p,-
000 had been exhausted, and that $5DOOOO moro
was needed to com uete the work. The Lerisla-
ture authorized the extra appropriations but the
9moh ,1 hed CSgne refused ~ to ssScspn II bv se b
plalntfs. and there was In addition sll20OO duo
for work that had been done under the con;
tract. The city had broken the contract, and
the suit was TO recover the amount remaining
unpaid.
Gen. 6locum, President OF the City Works
Board, testified that when the contract with
Kingsley Keeney was made. William A. Fow
Ter WAS President Of the board
When the contract offered In evidence,
Mr.. Dewitt, for the city, objected, because the
contract that included the Specifications as well
rs the agreement was not there, and COnse-
quently the paper offered was Incomplete. His
second objection was tnai the contract had been
changes, interllne stions and alterations there,
and there was no evidence to show when they
were made.
The referees admitted the altered contract,
under which Il Is claimed the fraudulent work
was done, and Gen Slocum further testified that
the engineer, Julius W. Adams. bad made the
monthly estimates Of the work on which the
contractors mad obtained their money.
The Corporation Counsel objected TO the intro
duction Of Adams's monthly estimates, aud the
referees decided to admit them.
When the fnal estimates Of the reservoir work
by Engineer Adams were offered, Gen. Slocum
testified that on the 2bi h of september, the day
before tue estimate was handed In, lie was pros
ent when the CORPORATION Counsel forbade En-
ginoer Adams to make out or finish an official
certificate of the work to Kingsley and keenoy,
aud that he Gen. tlocum) said that no city otii-
ciel had a right furnish such a certificate to
the contractors, who were suing the city. Col.
Adams answered that he would not furnish such
certificate. Subsequently he told Gen. Slocum
that, hough at tlrst he did not intend TO fur
nish the certinca.e to Kingsley kecney, lie
afteTward changed his mind
Inc plaintiffs counsel stTenuously objected to
this conversation being admitted as testimony,
but the city lawyers insisted ON their point. that
the engineer had no riIht 10 furnish the certin-
cate, whlcn would be used as evidence against
the city, and III I he had been expressly ordered
not to do It. and the judges reserved their de-
cisiUn until next Tuesday.