Fairhaven herald. [volume] (Fairhaven, Wash.) 1890-????, 1891-07-10

tractor for variance from the approx
mate estimate was not well taken. Inc
contractor assumed all risk OF variance
between approximate and actual figures,
and as matter OF right ne would not De
entitled TO any extras.
The contractors In the case claimed
that the grade was changed, but through
no fault of the city engineer, however,
and IL this were so he would have cause
of action, because of extra work.
City Engineer Allerton, In reply TO the
city attorney, said that he, the city en-
gneer, claimed there was no extra work.
Sheridan's attention had been called to
the fact that he was making mistake,
and this he (the city engineer) could
prove.
City Attorney Howard, continuing, said
In regard to the claim that extra work
had been done by reason OF traffic over
the street while under construction, the
court would take the position that II
1t could be shown that there was reaS-
enable way to take to Sehome, Mr.. Sherl-
dan would be entitled to the use OF the
street to the reasonable exclusion of the
public. 1t was alleged that the contrac-
tor had placed distractions across the
street to prevent public traffic, and that
these had been ordered removed by an
officer of the city, and so delayed the
work; and in considering damages all
these alleged facts would figure largely In
| II
undoubtedly taken the contract too low,
and here again a question arose. What Is
| il worth to the city? Is IL worth what
the city has to pay for it? This is ques-
tion that would carry considerable weight
with jury
1T is difficult" continued Mr.. Howard,
ITO establish what the outcome of this
case would BE-, until all the facts are es-
| tail uiShed, aud at this stage IL seemed to
| resolve itself into this: How much in
excess of claims filed will the council pay
rather than have recourse to litigation?
City Engineer Allerton said that he
! filed an objection to any extra compensa-
| tion To the contractor. 1t would be an in
| Justice to him (the city engineer) TO do
| so, as the claim had been made that he
made mistake in the grade on Front
street. lie cOurted the fullest inyestiga-
tion, and denied fatty that such was the
case.
City Attorney Howard remarked that
the city engineer was not on trial, and
that no suspicion of blame attached to
that officer nj the premises.
Councilman Kinghorn said it was re-
ported that mistakes had been made, and
there was an effort to faSten them on the
city engineer. The city engineer labored
under a mistake, he would not be held
responsible for the settlement, and nc
reflection would be made on him.
Judge Evans appeared for Sheridan,
and stated, in answer TO Mr.. Attention.
that there was no intention TO reflect on
him. This was, as Mr.. Howard had aptly
remarked, question of law and of fact
to be determined by a jury. He wa'
there with an offer to settle the matter
and as there was claim for an excess owe
what the city engineer had justly allowed
il was because it was right; the work haC
been ubstructed and delayed by the actor
of the then Street Commissioner DE Fries
All that Mr.. Sheridan asked in excess o
what he had actually paid out, was a
reasonable amount for his personal time
G.. V. Alexander, attorney for George
f. Willets stated that his client had q
} claim against Front street, and no
against Sheridan q O'Brien, for the sun
of Sls5. His client had done work fol
sub. contractors for Sheridan, and he haC
, lien upon abutting lots where work wa
? done, and If this bill was paid, the prop
erty owners were liable TO come bacl
upon the city for repayment. sheridan y
/ lO'Brien came before the council and de
manded extra payment, and II this wa
, allowed as matter OF equity they shoul'
4 pay Willets.
n City Attorney Howard asked If ther
v was any record as to what uses the none
[ paid Sheridan q O'Brien had been put.
The clerk said there was not.
Councilman Monahan knew II had no
o been "blown in at any rate. Mr.. Sheri
n dan had mOrtgaged property TO rais
n money TO pay labOrers.
# The city attorney remarked that II
could be shown that the contractor use
d money received on this contract, Tor Othe
q purposes, ii would go against him. Ther
were equities in the case which 1ur
II would have TO consider.
e Councilman Darling said the matter ha
1t been thoroughly discussed. 1t was eyl
If dent, he thought, that the city was lia0l
If for material furnished. The amount io
~ "A.
If S4.3l5ss, and the other claim was "a
,e S2l5O. If the council thought that tn
claim was too much IL was in order
l. lessen It. The city's interests had 10
Ie looked after, and in passing this matte
they were establishing precedent whlc
would operate in future contracts.
Councilman Kinghorn said that Sher
dan claimed Sl3,Sl5, the amount allowe
T.. him I'm the motion was fifty per cent. les
." and while the amount claimed by Sher
dan should not be considered, 10 migl
% have weight with jury. On the 9th,
M hand, there was a possibility that u
claim would be thrown out.
Councilman AllertOn said that the col
90 tractors went into this matter with the
- eyes open, aud # they took II too low,
70 was not the city's fault. The count
in might pay the claims for material, but
r. would not vote Tor the whole amount:
Id Councilman MOnahan said Sherldi
cd had paid 81. 200 out Of his own pock,
and that certainly should be considered
Ia. just claim. , q. -
en- Councilman Darling said IL had d
et, yeloped in the discussion today that |
ed contract had been taken too low, and u
der Sheridan's proposition he would y
RI only be paid i'm full but would have
he own time paid for, principle, II adoptt
that would operate to the detriment
other contractors.
he Councilman Monahan remarked III
m the city's action in not protecting She
dan when the street was under constrt
lst tion was bad. DE Fries, the street co
mt missioner, had thrown down the fenc
to and when the contractor had asked h
on how he was to prevent the public tray
les ing over IL to his detriment, that ONT
by replied, use a shotgun.
ch Councilman Darling asked what ella
be the city would have, under the circu
Of stances. for damages by reason OF
80, contractor not completing the contr
nts by specified time.
len The city attorney replied that II
le city had waived claim for damages ]
eet had any, IL would now at this day
hat estopped from collecting any. L
e would all depend upon the facts In
In case, however
nst Councilman Darling said the pres
sri- council was placed In peculiar post
We by the action of the previous council;
After some further discussion, Co
vas Gilman Klnghorn's motion was put
the lost. KinRhorn and MOnahan voting
the and Christopher. AllertOn and Darling
ded Councilman Darling then moved I
the the sum of A,3l5.SS be substituted for
the ouount In tho original motion, 81, ,fB5