Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-02-10
THE FARRELL CLAIM.
ANOTHER MEETING or THE BOARD.
Evidence Taken of Former Commissioners
--What the Howling Newspapers Did or
Didnt--The Claim Unanimously Rejected.

Didnt--Ihe Claim L Unanimously TStJoCteus
The County Commissioners met again
yesterday morning at 10 o'clock to consider
the Farrell claim. The members present
were Messrs. Maynard, Lindeke, Miner,
Wagner and Mr.. President.
Mr.. O'Brien appeared for petitioner, and
Mr.. Rogers for the county. Some little time
was spent in general conversation awaiting
the appearance Of Captain Berkey and Mr..
Brainard. The former gentleman hay
ing arrived he was sworn, and
stated that he was chairman of the committee
on public buildings in 1873. He remembered
quite while after letting the contract for
the court house, Farrell saying he had
ding had progressed considerably toward its
completion, his recollection now is that he
ignored his, Farrells claim; if he had added
the $500, to his bid he would not have got
the contract: the board when they met never
conceded anything to Farrell, but they were
liberal with him for extra work: he had al
ways told Farrell that the board could do
nothing; Farrell did not say he would not go
on: if that had been done new bids would
have been asked for; he did not remember
any such conversation alluded to by Mr..
Farrell and he thought he, Mr.. Berkey, could
never have said anything of the kind for he
always opposed Farrel's claim: he remember
ed that some brick used would have been
condemned only the board thought Farrell
had gone rather close in his bid.
BY Mr.. Lindeke-Did you ever hear it
stated in the board that this claim was laid
over because other claims were made, and
the board feared the bowling of the papers!
MI. Berkey-I heard nothing of this till
reading it in the papers this morning.
Mr.. Rogers Getty attorney-The bids
were made on the specifications of the work
to be done. The specifications covered the
work in dispute. He got allowed for the
extra work to the amount of some $4,000.
He understood that Farrell had received his
lullpay for all work done.
Mr.. O'Brien spoke in favor of the claim
and hoped it would be disposed of one way
or the other. 1t had been pending since rs.
He recapitulated the evidence, showing Far
rell had made mistake in putting in his
bid. He explained his mistake on account of
not having prices Of the iron doors, and when
he went to have the omission inserted it was
too late. He asked for a settlement as a
question of equity.
Mr.. Rogers said he had but little to say
upon the matter. An architect was employ
ed who gave plans and specifications, and
bids were asked for.
MIR BRAINARDs EVIDENCE.
At this point Mr.. Brainard came in, and
Mr.. Rogers deferred his address till he should
be sworn and examined.
Mr.. Brainard remembered the circum-
stances i'll question. 1t was SO long ago he
recollected but little about the details; he
remembered some statement by Farrell about
leaving out of his bid the doors and win
dows; he thought he was led to believe by
of windows and doors was omitted
der the impression that the bill was disal
lowed. that all these claims were included il
the original bid: the commissioners, when
the original bill was presented, did no
allow the extra claim; the board would no
have let the contract to Farrell if the boart
had not considered the bid included all tn,
work.
Questioned by Mr.. Rogers, he said som,
of the brick was condemned; when he spok
to witness, he said it was not right, bu
if it was submitted to the board they would
take it under consideration; he thought Far
rell found out his mistake when he came tt
pay for the material; when it was frs
brought before the board he supposed it wa
disallowed.
In answer to Mr.. Lindeke he said he wa
a member OF the board when the claim wa
made; he thought he heard statemen
made before the board that it would be al
lowed if the papers We're not bowling s,
much about extra claims.
Mr.. President-What did you conside
the meaning of the term indefinitely post
poned?
Mr.. Brainard-I considered that complet
answer to the bill.
By Mr.. Lindeke-Your understanding wa
that the bill was disallowed?
Mr.. Brainard-That was INV understand
ing.
Mr.. O'Brien made another earnest appea
to the board to allow the claim.
Mr. President wanted to know the mean
ing Of indefinitely postponed. If the men
bers thought that was a settlement of til
question, was not that to be considered b
the present board that the former boards il
tention was to disalloW it.
Mr.. Lindeke sworn, said the first time h
heard of the case was from MI. Blaisdel
who told him that probably the board woul
have another claim from Mr.. Farrell
he intimated that two commissioner
had mixed themselves up in the matter
Brainard and Welch, but he told MI. Blai.
dell the whole question was settled, and a
legal claims paid. After that they secure
a petition, not bill, and the Board sent Il
Mr.. Berley, who was angry for being Sc
for because the whole thing had been pal
for; he, Mr.. Lindeke, was surprised that M
Blaisdell should advocate taking notice
the petition; he (BlaisdelD said States did j
counties did it, towns did it and individual
did it; Mr.. Lindeke said that, acting in the
official capacity, the board had no right
pay Farrell if the board as individual cit
zens wanted to subscribe to Farrell to GOV
his alleged losses, he would subscribe
much as any of them.
Questioned by Mr.. Rogers, he said
heard nothing of this claim till the time
mentioned speaking to Blaisdell; never hea
anything about the newspaper howlings
nothing was said of the kind in his hearin
Questioned by Mr.. O'Brien, he said
Farrell had come to him and stated that
had made a mistake he would have told hi