Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-01-06
TH4T BRIDGE CASE
Mr.. HUBBARD, THROUGH his ATTORNEY, DE-
MES TIE CHARGES
Mr.. Russell Claims the Agreement Was Never
Signsd-AlsO That Mr.. Hubbard Was in
No Wise Connected With Any
Fraudulent Scheme.

The suit Of 1.-THE Wheeling Bridge
Company" against Ferris, Kaufman ct
ais, involving the sum Of S125,000 the
details OF which were given in yester-
days REGISTER, was the general topic
of conversation about town, and many
comments were heard.
As the late hour at which the partic-
ulars were obtained on Wednesday
night precluded the possibility OF OBJ
tanning an interview from the other
side, that of the defendants, REGISTER
reporter called at Lawyer Hubbard's
Office yesterday afternoon to inquire il
he had any statement to make.
"You should have obtained my state
ment yesterday to publish In connec-
ton with the declaration" said Mr..
Hubbard.
The reporter stated that he supposed
all the parties Of the other side were
out of the city, and did not think it
likely they could be reached at that
late hour, to which Mr.. Hubbard re-
piled that he had telephone at his
residence out the road, and might have
been called up.
Would you care to make any state
ment now concerning the case?" asked
the reporter.
81 refer you to my counsel, Mr..
Henry NJ. Russell, and he can use his
own Judgment in the matter" said Mr..
Hubbard.
Mr.. Russell was at that time engaged
in case In the Circuit Court, before
Judge PAUL, and could not be seen at
his Office until nearly o'clock.
al have read the report OF the case so
far as it has gone in the newspapers,
and desire to say at the outset that,
while the statements published are, in
the main, correct, the inference to be
drawn is misleading. For instance, the
papers publish copy OF an agreement,
wherein is contained an alleged fraudu-
lent deal, whereby each OF five parties
are to receive $4,000, over actual
cost of the bridge. Now.
while Mr.. Hubbard may have known Of
the existence Of such an agreement,
and he probably did, he was in 10 wise
a party TO it; he did not sign his name
to it, and in fact, no names were ever
signed TO it.; he was In no way what
ever connected with any fraudulent
scheme and never received cent Of the
S25, 900 that the plaintiffs ever was paid
to each of the five parties in the deal.
The publishing Of the agreement in the
paper would naturally lead people to
think that it was of course signed, but
that the paper had simply omitted the
names as being unnecessary. The
agreement was never signed. 1t was
simply drawn up, and remained In the
possession of the com mittee Enacted
upon, and so far as Mr.. Hubbard is con-
cerned, be was wholly ignorant OF what
the agreement involved other than that
the $3.50, 900 was the honest and legiti-
mate price of the bridge. To go over
the whole bill now would require much
time. but so far as Mr.. Hubbard is
concerned / think shall be able to
show clearly and conclusively that he
was in no wise connected with any
fraudulent deal In this bridge case. So
far as the other defendants are con-
cerned, 1 know nothing at present, as
they all reside out of the city, and l
have had no communication with them.
An answer to the bill will be filed the
first Monday of next month"