The Sunday tatler and Jersey City express. (Jersey City, N.J.) 1883-1886, 1885-08-02
$4,000 SAYED no THE CITY.
Judge HIcDsrmott Wipes ont the Last
scaly Reminder az the Ola Green
VILE Pentarchx.

Bedle approved the following legislative
enactment
"a supplement to an act entitled, An
act to reorganize the local government Of
Jersey City, passed March 31st, 1876.
l. BE II ENACTED blythe Senate and General
Assembly of the State Of NeaC JERSEY, That in
case any work has been done or materials
have been furnished for the improvement
of New Bergen road, from Myrtle avenue
to the Morris Canal, in any township now
included within the limits of Jersey City,
and such work or materials were not duly
advertised and contracted for in the man.
ner prescribed by law, then the Justice
of the Supreme Court, holding the Circuit
Court for the County of Hudson, shall APP
point referee, who if it appears to his
satisfaction that such work and materials
were furnished on such road by the order
of any lawfully constituted board in any
such town or township, or by the Engineer
of such board having charge of the work
on any such road, shall order paid to the
person or persons who may have done or
furnished the same such sum of money in
payment thereof as shall be just and reason
able, and the money SO ordered to be paid
shall, upon confirmation of the report of
said Referee by said Judge, be paid by said
advertisement and contract had been made
in the premises proUided, that the award
may be made at any time, but payment
thereof shall not be made until after the
completion Of the litigation in a certain
cause in the Court Of Chancery of New Jer-
sey, wherein Christian Schumm is COM
plainant and the Street Commissioners of
| Greenville or their successors in power and
| others, are defendants; and if in said liti-
| cation the contractor on said roud is direct
ed to pay back to the city any money here
| tofore received by him on the ground
that he was not entitled thereto, then such
amount SO directed to be paid back shall be
| deducted from the said award
| Under the provisions of the above law,
Judge Knapp, on the Dist day of August,
1875, appointed Jacob Weart, Esq, Referee,
to ascertain what amount was due to one
James H. Eimendorf for the improvement
| of the New Bergen road From that date I'M
til 1879, Mr.. Elmendorf, whose case was
| conducted by Messrs. Linn and Rabbit,
| of this city, had an easy road to travel
| Mr. Weart reported in 1877 in favor of the
claimant The city declined to pay, and
an action was commenced in the Supreme
Court to recover the amount of the award
| A few days after the commencement of the
suit, Mr.. Allen l.. McDermott was appoint
| ed Corporation Attorney of Jersey City.
The case was called for trial on the Sd of
September. 1879, before Justice Reed, who
was then temporarily presiding in the Hud-
son Circuit A comprehensive under
| standing of the case to that date will be
| obtained from the following statement,
which we take from Mr.. Med brief
in the last chapter of the litigation, read
before the Court of Errors and Appeals,
where the cause was finally argued on the
22d of last June:
&C In 1871, the Street Commissions
ers of Greenville awarded a contract to
James FL. Elmendorf for the improvement
of the New Bergen road, in the Township
of Greenville, from Myrtle avenue to the
Morris Canal. Elmendorf was the lowest
bidder, his estimate being 800, 165 60.
Two other bids appropriated that of Ell
mendorf, one from G. De Clark being for
S102, 1923, the other from Thomas Gaifney
for sos, 024 16. Henry D. Belts was at
that time Chief Engineer of the Township
of Greenville, and upon his certificate pay
ments were made to Elmendorf to the
amount of $104. 434 So, being four-ffths of
the amount certified to be due him, the
contract calling for retention of twenty
per cent until the completion of the work
October 20, 1872, Belts presented his final
certificate, stating that there were still due
to the contractor $40, 273,80. Before this
amount was paid bill in chancery was
fled by Christian Schumm and others
liable to assessment for the Improvement,
who insisted that the claim of Elmendorf
was fraudulent, inasmuch as he had failed
to comply with the terms of his contract.
| The Chancellor advised decree, de-
termining that items to the amount of
$40, 1881, certified for payment by the
enaEipesz extra aud illegaL~ork
and should be disalloW6d. There remained
balance, according to the engineer
certificate, of So, 293,89. The payment of
this amount was also enjoined until proper
deductions for violations of the contract
could be made A reference was ordered
to ascertain these deductions to Washing
ton b. Williams, Esq, Master, who re-
ported that there should be deducted, on
account of the failure of the contractor to
furnish the materials and labor called for
by his contract, the sum of nine thousand
one hundred and eighty dollars, leaving a
balance due Elmendorf of one hundred and
thirteen dollars and seventy-six cents An
exhaustive review of the case to this point
will be found in the reported case of
Schumm vs.. Seymour, 8, @. E. Green, 49,
1856 During the tendency of this case,
Elmendorf secured the passage of the act
now under consideration Before its APP
proval, the Township of Greenville, hope
lessly laden with debt, had sought relief
by annexation with Jersey City. Indigna-
ton meetings Of the taxpayers of Green
vile had been held shortly prior to said
annexation, and the action of the Commits
sioners with ref renee to this and other
improvements denounced. Belts, the en-
L. 4
fraudentlv certifying that work and mater
ials had been furnished by Elmendorf
The proceedings, which were had under
the law Of 1876, fully appear in the printed
case herewith submitted. It will be seen
by reference thereto that there was not a
line of testimony taken on behalf of the
city, the Referee deciding upon the state
ments of Elmendorf, his bondsman, and a
few of his employees, Notice being taken
Of one item will sufficiently expose the
| himsiness of the foundation upon which
this report is based. In none of the certi-
ficates of the engineer or claims OF EImen-
dorf presented to the Board of Street
Commissioners of Greenville does there
appear an item for extra gravel supplied on
the road. In his dealings with the work,
Belts, the engineer, evidently guarded the
interests of the contractor, yet he never
discovered the fact for, Il he did, the dis
covery did not come with sufficient force
to induce him to mention it in his certif-
cates) that Emendorf had placed $1,000
worth of extra gravel on the road. This item,
as charge against the city, was developed
before the Referee and allowed by him.
And this, Notwithstanding the fact thai
Elmendorf had sworn, in his answer to the
bill of Sehumm, that the only expense of
the road, beyond the items mentioned in
the final certificate of the engineer (which
says nothing Of extra gravel), would
be an outlay Of four hundred dol