The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1893-02-09


by said Ferris 4 Kaufman after their
final surveys showed cost OF construc;;
ton Of said bridges, exclusive oil real
estate, to DO $4,000, and respondent
says he then believed and now believes
that tnat price was not excessive, but
was n fair price, making Just allowance
for the services OF Ferris & Kaufman
for engineering work, and for reasona-
BILE aud usual profits to which they
were entitled.
at is not true that this defendant and
thedeieudants, Ferris, Kaufman, Hub
bard and Uptegralf, had secretly or
fraudulently or otherwise combined to-
gether and arrived at any such under
standing or agreement as set forth In
the plaintiffs bill, to the effect that Fer
ris 4 Kaufman should make an offer
10 the plaintiffs board Of directors to
take the contract for the construction OF
the plaintiffs works Tor the sum OF
$452, 900, being $l25, 900 in excess OF the
estimated cost thereof, and it Is not
true that this defendant with the other
defendants or with any other person
entered into any such agreement or UNI
derstanding whatever II Is not true
that there was any understanding or
agreement between this defendant and
any other person whatever that he,
Hubbard and Uptegratf, should by their
influence and votes or otherwise, secure
the acceptance OF the said or any SINH
lar offer by tho plaintiffs board OF dl'
rectors. 1t is not true that any such
understanding was carried out by this
respondent or any other person to his
knowledge at tho meeting Of February
"a, 1890, mentionedin the bill, or at any
other meeting. 1t is nottrue that there
was any understanding or agreement
between this defendant and said Ferris,
Kaufman, Hubbard and Uptogralf, or
between this defendant and any other
person, that any difference between con.
tract price and cost OF construction
should be divided equally or otherwise
between tho defendants.
The answer further denies that the
company has been deirauded out Of tho
sum OF $4,000, or any other sum, by
any act OF his, or ofany other person so
far as he knows. He believes the price
paid to Ferris & Kaufman was S452,-
900, but as provided the payment was
partly in cash, bonds and stocks OF the
company, as set forth. He AYERS that
the bridge cost Ferris & Kaufman
more than $500, 900, rs set forth in the
company's bill, and alleges that the cost
to Ferris & Kaufman was according
to his information and belief at least
S350,0O exclusive OF engineering, estl-
mated at $4,000.
The respondent says the bridges are
worth more than the amount paid by
the company for them. He says that
provision was made for the payment to
Ferris & Kaufman OF 500, 600 in
bonds, on the contract price. This firm
also subscribed for stock OF the company
SlG4 900, and at this time the stock
could not be said to nave had any mar
ket value, and whether 1t would ever
have had value depended upon the sue
cessful future accomplishment Of the
work proposed. These bonds also de-
pended for their value on the subse-
quent completion OF the bridges, except
for the deed OF trust on real estate Of
small value.
The respondent denied on information
and beliefthat those thugs in fact done,
with reference to tho making Of tho
contract, were done without the knowl-
edge Of John Mcclure, Henry SChmul.
bach and the other stockholders, and
says that said Henry Schmulbach and
John Mcclure, who with Hubbard, Up
tegraff and the respondent were the
board OF directors, had all the knowl-
edge and information which this re.
spondent had with reference 10 that
matter. The same is true with regard
to tho defendant. j. j.. Hughes, who
was the plaintiffs secretary, and that
while tho general stockholders who
were not members OF the board may not
have had as specific information OF de.
tails as this respondent and tho other
members OF the board, yet he alleges on
information and belief that all stock
holders, from the first until said agree.
ment was made with Ferris & Kautf.
mann, supposed and expected that the
bridges would cost at least S450,0O0, ex.
elusive OF real estate. He denies that
any combination, conspiracy or agree.
mcnt with reference to the said bridges
was ever concealed by him from the
said Mcclure or schmulbach or the
other stockholders. lie denies that he
with Hubbard and Updegratf contracted
with Themselves and Ferris & KauIi-
mann for the construction at fraudu'
lent price, or at any price or manner,
and denies that any such thing was
done. also that S450,0O0 was not OK
horbitant.
He denies that there was in October,
1889, any such agreement as alleged in
plaintiff q bill. He denies that the in.
crease OF tho stock OF the defendants
had anything to do with the alleged
agreements, which did not include
Schmulbach, McLure and Hughes.
Both his subscriptions to stock were
made in good faith.
l1o denies that in December. 1889, or
at any other time it was decided among
said UpdcgralF, Hubbard, Ferris, Kaut-
mann and this respondent that any
such madc OF procedure should be
followed rs alleged in the bill. He
denies that any estimate OF tho cost OF
tho bridges had then bnen made, also
denies that they made any such guar
anty with reference to tho street car
company. Ho denies any conspiracy
TO throw the majority Of the stock into
tho hands OF the defendants, and denies
anysecret understanding.
Respondent denies that he ever sug'
gested such agreement as sOt forth in
exhibit number one OF the plaintiffs
bill. Ho says tho only distinct propos.
ition ever made by Ferris O. Kaufman
was for S462, 1000, and later at S450,0O0
Ho donios any change OF estimate from
$4,000 TO $4,000.
lilo denies in full tho allegation in