, 1888-03-08
FOR THE DEFENDANT.
The Famous Local Doodle Case De-
cided in District Court.
The Attachment on Mr.. Murray's
Warrant Withdrawn.
twenty-five Witnesses Testify
During the Trial.

The trial of the Harrington Murray
case was resumed in the district court
yesterday afternoon and concluded before
court adjourned.
A word in regard to this case will not
be amiss here. Last spring IL. Altman,
chairman ofthe city council committee on
public parks and buildings, was author
lied by the council TO have certain i'm
provenents made at the park. These
alterations were to consist in part of grad
ing certain portions of the enclosure In
pursuance of this plan Mr.. Altman pro-
ceeded to obtain bids for the work to be
done. No advertisement was inserted in
the official paper Of the city, but in lieu
thereof Mr.. Altman notified certain par
tics Of what he proposed to do and asked
them to bid for the work. To make a
long story short j. l.. Murray. then; as
now, a member of the city council, was
awarded the contract and proceeded to do
the work. For the Job he was to receive
the sum of $500.
Eventually Henry Harrington, as one
of the taxpayers OF the city, brought suit
to enjoin the payment of the warrant, on
the ground That the contract had not been
let in the manner provided by the city
charter, inasmueh as there had been no
advertisements for bids through the city
paper. In other words it was claimed in
the bill that the contract was illegal. The
bill or petition alleged that there had been
fraud CONSTRUCTIVE in the letting Of the
contract, and in support of this it was al
legged hat there was COLLISION between the
member of the council letting the CON
tract and the member doing the work.
This was sought to be shown by the fact
already stated, that Mr.. Murray was a
member of the council.
In the suit as brought not only Mr..
Murray, but County Treasurer BERGMAN
and the city itself were made parties, the
object being to prevent the payment of
the gwarrant, which had been issued be-
fore the suit was brought.
Messrs. Corlett, Lacey & Riner were
employed by Mr.. Harrington, while Mr..
Murray retained the services of Donzel-
man & Miller. So far as the city was
concerned it was represented by City At
tornev Van Devantcr.
Prior to the converting Of the present
term Of court the matter was argued on
some preliminary questions which did not
amount to a trial on the merits of the
case. Some rulings were made however
which seemed to have in part decided the
case
The case came up for trial on itI merits
on Tuesday, at which time rs many as
twenty-five witness appeard. The main
points were whether the work had been
done in good faith and whether the ser,
vices were worth the amount for which
the warrant had been drawn. As al,
ready stated the trial of the case was re,
sumed yesterday afternoon A large
number of witnesses were examined OF
both sides and the result was that the
case was dismissed by the conrt.
During the progress Of this case the
court held that the provision of the char
ser recurring that bids on contracts on be
half of the city (for the expenditure of So
and over shall be advertised for docs moi
necessarily mean hat the advertisements
shall be made through a newspaper, and
also hat the mere fact that a contract is
let to a member of the city council does
not imply that there is any fraud about it
or that it was let by collision, especially
when other parties appear to have been
bidders for the work and the price paid
does not seem to be greater than the
work was worth.