New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-06-28
KEENAN, CLAIMS A SHARE.
ASKING MR.. CLARK TO DIVIDE PROFITS
SUING THE AQUEDUCT CONTRACTOR FOR BIG
AMoUST-THE ANSWERS MADE.


AMOUNT-THE ANSWERS MADE.
The inside history Of the methods by which
John keenan,, of boodls' fame, who is now in
Canada, fugitive from justice, Maurice B. Flynn.
OBrien and Clark, the contractors, and John II.
Mooney sought to secure the millions that were
in the contracts for constructing the new Aque-
| duct was brought to light yeserday in suit
| begun for a division of the spoils in the Court
| OF Common Pleas
| keenan, claims that he is entitled to o generous
share of the $4,000 900 contracts Of Herman Clark
and has sued him for an accounting, demanding
] that receiver of all his interests in the new
| Aqueduct contracts be appointed keenan, claims
| chat by an arrangement entered into with Clark,
by which Keenan, was TO use his influence in
securing the contracts, he was to receive a large
share Of the profits which Clark has failed 10 give
| him.
| coNCEDING THAT AN AGREEMENT WAS MADE.
1t is conceded that such agreement was made
| in 1884, when Hubert o. Thompson was Com
missioner of Public Works keenan, at that time
offered to secure the influence Of Thompson in
obtaining the contracts, and asked Clark to ad-
vance $4,000 to be used in the good work.
" II this is done' said keenan,, 4" Thompson will
not tie up my contract and his friendship would
be great advantage in securing the work" This
arrangement fell through, but Keenan, claims that
|
Of which he wants determined by accounting, in
which the profits of the large contracts obtained
! by Clark and his associates may be determined
The case came before Judge Van Housen in the
Court of Common Pleas, Special Term yester-
day, a motion for the appointment of a re-
ceiver. Colonel George Bliss appeared for the
plaintiff and ex-Judge Leslie w. Russell, L. I.
Lovett and Chauncey S. Truax appeared for the
defendant. The papers in the case were pre-
sented.
MR. CLARK DENIES THE CLAIMS
Heman Clark in his answer denies the plaintiffs
claim that he is a partner of his in the Aqucduct
contracts and says that he and the plaintiff never
did business under the firm name of Heman Clark
& Co. He states that the agreement set forth III
the complaint was destroyed and declared null and
void at the request of the plaintiff. He adds that
in 1884 he was engaged in the extreme Northwest
building the Northern Pacific Railroad, and that he
| came to New-York in March of that year. lie had
been here but short time when Keenan, called at
his house. and, after introducing himself, said that
he had absolute control and authority to negotiate
large contract for supplying New York City with
| water and that as he had read OF Clarks rapid
work in constructing the Northern Pacific Rail
road he had concluded to offer the contract to him.
The deponent thereupon entered into an agree
ment with keenan, to take the contract and divide
! the profits with keenan,. memorandum of this
agreement was made, but the depOnent returned
his some months later when he found that contracts
for the Aqueduct were to be awarded TO the low
! est bidder Keenan, then told him that things had
! drfted into such shape that the contract was
not at his disposal, and he willing to call the
agreement Off.
MONEY TO BE USED "JUDICIOUSLY'
At this interview Keenan, limited that little
money judiciously used might help the deponent
to secure the contracts. This induced Clark to
make inquiries and he learned that keenan, was q
person of great political influence in this city. At
Keenan's request Clark called at his office in
| the City Hall or the new Court House and
Keenan, suggested that he should engage with him
in the Chambers-st. horse railroad enterprise,
saying that he had done all the preliminary work
but that /" it required $4,000 for obtaining
charter and that if the deponent would advance
it he would give him One-half interest IN tne
road that as soon as certain payments were made
the road could be sold for 100000.
Clark asked if it was not risky to put up money
in that manner and Keenan, replied that money
told the story in New-York' and asked the de-
fendant if he could mention single road In this
city whose charter had not been obtained in that
manner The defendant regarded this as illegal
and declined to pay the money, and Keenan, said
he had been discussing the, Adpeduct contracts
with Hubert O. Thompson. then CommlsSonef OF
Public Works. and that the latter favored
giving the contracts to o. Bren. and that the latter
had the backing Of Maurice Flynn ciaes heenaa an
then said he would like to Introduce clark 10
these parties as it might be to his advantage TO
Join O'Bren in bidding instead "f bidding against
him. and that i ANYTHING eamf o oGG IN nteSest G1
aaSnenailv ~ bc had promised TO refund political
assessment OF $4,000 to Controller Loew OUT Oh
the profits of the contracts.
The result of this interview was an agreement
between o. Brien and the defendant by which they
made bids for all the AGueduct work IN the name 2,
Of GBa bSG Ta Sssn bS for
that in case he was awarded the work
for these two sections they should do the work
awarded 70 O'Brien & Co, and Sections and B
TO Clark, and the work was carried on r., on all
awards under the firm name of o Brlen a. OlafH; TX
The defendant never took work on the aque-
duct under the name of Heman clark & 90 ne
said nor has he kept any books In tne name oi
H. Clark & Co. nor has ne ever pe penIetgu n tbe name
Of Hcman Clark & Co, and he knows that no
such firm is in existence
John o'BRIEN's AFFIDAVIT READ
The affidavit of John O'Brien, which was reau
by the counsel was in substance as follows:
The deponent a member Of the firm OF oBrien
& CIortT and Ueman Clark did work Sections g.
7 and O. and Sections and B OF the Aqueouct
He was introduced to Clark in 1884 by keenan,, anu anu
he and Clark formed eop1rh.SK h'dGe Keenan' Flynn.
!, John H Mooney. Clark and the dcponent entered
written agreement which gave 10 Ne RrsS &
clark upon his agreeing TO perform certain services
but he failed do anything that would en. enrod I ba
deponent that the agreement referred to IN me me
complaint dated in March, 1884, between nm it ama
been made had been substituted I'm its place. Keenan,
told him that he had expected through MS any p 10
control The work TO have into an agreement with
Mr. Clark in which he and the latter were to divide
the nrnGts hut through the work being given TO the
lowest bidder his control had ceased and he had TO
abandon his agreement with Clark --- -.
The denonent IS familiar with the business trans
acted nv bis arm and no books OF accounts or writ
Ing Of any kind had ever been received c9sr or made IN
relate IN bnalnrss carried In the name Of Heman
Clark & Co. All work on Sections 9, . and was
dome I'm tbe name OF O'Brlen & Clark, and Sections
A and r I'm the name of Heman Clark and estimates
on the latter section we're turned over to pBrien q
been turned over 10 his firm by HemaD Clark & Co.
MAURICE b. FLYNN MAKES AN AFFIDAVIT
Maurice b. Flynn, in an affidavit which was also
read, stated that an agreement had been made be
, tween the plaintiff and the defendant about the
5 time mentioned in the complaint. Afterward