The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-05-10
PERINES STATUARY.
Expert O'COnn0r Testifl s on
Doodle Bills.
He Knsv AL About the Contract Higgins
Made to Pass the Napa Asylum Claim
Through the Legislature.

The taking Of testimony in the Frear
Stone Company's suit against n. Perine
was completed before Referee Mcguire yes.
terday.
p. j. 0Connor. an architect and contrac-
tor. was the only witness heard. 0'Connor
testified that he was employed by the State
as an expert when the Napa Asylum for the
Insane was being built in 1876, and during
the sessions of the Legislature in the years
1S77-7S he was clerk and expert for the COM
mittee on Buildings and Grounds.
The witness remem bered that joint meet
ing of the Senate and Assembly committees
was held to discuss the Napa Asylum
claims and to meet the contractors. Perine's
name did not appear among those Of the
claimants.
If 1881 0'Connor was again clerk in the
Assembly he stated, and then he stated
what lie knew of Periue's bill for the statu-
airy in the Napa Asylum grounds introduced
by Dave Mcclure together with a number
of similar claims,
a CONTRACT WITH HIGGINS.
In answer to a question by Attorney
Barden, the witness said that he was aware
that Perine had made contract with Hig
gins to have his claim allowed, and that
Higgins was TO receive % per cent OF the
money. The contract was made by John c.
Hail. who represented all the Napa Asylum
contractors.
In 1887 the witness was again in Sacra-
mentO. This time he was employed by
Perine. who paid him $40 a day to advocate
the passage of his claim for the ma rble
gods and goddesses which embellish the
grounds of the Napa Asylum.
Witness then stated that he had heard
Higgins say that he again had a contract
with Perlne, but an objection being inter-
posed by Attorney Graves and sustained by
Referee Mcguire, he was not allowed TO tell
what he had learned OH this subject.
On discrimination, 0'COnnOr admitted
that considerable work was done on the State
asylum at Napa after he had made his iu-
vestigatiOn and rendered his report and
that some of this work might have been
done by PeIine.
THE CLAIM ALLOWED.
The Legislature of 1887 passed the bill
which allowed S6624 to the Frear Stone
Company for the Statuary in question.
After O'COnnor retired Attorney Borden
desired to introduce Perine's memorandum
book Of 1887 in evidence, but the book was
not produced, it being declared missing by
Perlne'S attorney, who however promised
TO use diligence 20 find IT,
Borden claimed that the notebook was
essential, because it contained an entry in
PeTine's handwriting TO the effect that he
had contracted with Higgins fer the pas
sage of the bill at the rate of 90 per cent,
and not as he claims now for 70 per cent.
Perine corrected the attorney by admitting
that when lie bargained with Higgins first
in 1887 the agreement was 90 per cent only,
but that after the death Of Governor Bart
lett. when Governor Waterman came into
power Higgins raised his price and de-
manded 10 per cent which he afterWard
received.
Some discussion was then had as to the
manner in which the case shall be argued
and on what rOints the referee Is EN-
powered TO hear argument.
Periue's attorneys were anxious to argue
on the proposition that their client collected
ne money from the State as an agent for the
Frear Stone Company, but that the claim
allowed by the Legislature was personally
bis own, and he need not account for the
| money he received in that manner
Referee Mcguire held otherwise, and said
that il was clear to him that he had been
appointed by Judge Hunt TO hear testimony
and argument on The accounting only. be-
cause had the presumption existed that
Perine acted for himself only his MA
guiTe'sl appointment as referee would have
been unnecessary, there being in such a
case nothing for him TO do.
Argument will be heard by ex-JUdge Ma
guire on May q at 10 4. NJ