The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-12-15

this was the first proceedings under the law.
The Mayor adhered to his first decision,
and said that he would require the charges
to be proven.
DEFENCE WANT THE FULL MINUTES.
The Mayor asked if counsel for defence
would admit that the extract from the
records or minutes in the charges were cor
rect.
Mr. Corbin said that he wanted the entire
minutes to go in SO that if there was any
thing in the rest of the minutes from which
the extracts were made, explaining the ex-
tracts, his side could have the benefit of it.
Mr.. Douglass said he appeared for hugh
Leslie, DR.. Allen and the others making the
second charges, and that he was ready to
prove those charges when called upon.
The Mayor said that he would let Mr..
Douglass know when he was wanted. He
proposed to sit every day until the charges
were all disposed of.
Mr.. Corbin said that he did not want his
silence construed as his acquiescence in the
sufficiency of the evidence.
CLERKS BoUToN AND FINcK TESTIFY.
George Bouton was then sworn. He ldenti-
fed the minutes of the board from April q,
1891, to April 81, 1898, and from the later
date up to the last meeting of the board.
The Mayor said in order to expedite mat
ters he would take for granted that the
extracts from the minutes are correct, unless
the respondents showed the contrary. Both
sides agreed to this.
Martin Finck, Clerk of the Board of Fl
nance, was next sworn. He produced the
minutes of the Board of Finance containing
a resolution calling upon the Street and
Water Board to furnish the Finance Com
misSioners with a detailed statement of the
receipts and expenditures of the Water De-
partment. The resolution was passed July
81. At the meeting of October 20 the FL
.,pI fryn1 stafr anrNf frDrpn
Water Commissioner Healey. This state
ment is the basis of the charge No.4, which is
that of extravaganza in the Water Depart
ment.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Corbin, Mr..
Finck said that he thought an earlier state
ment than that was sent in by the Street
and Water Board but sent back by the
Finance Board to be made more explicit
COMPTROLLER HOUGH EXAMINED.
Comptroller Hough said that the amount
appropriated October 2, 1891, was
$4,000, and detailed the expenditure
for that amount, as stated in the charges.
Comptroller Hough, continuing, said that
out of the fund was paid $5,697.37, leaving a
balance of 81, ,302. .63.
Counsellor Erwin asked witness if he had
examined the appropriations for extra work.
Mr.. Hough gave the figures paid out for the
Fourth and Second Precinct Station Houses
Nos. %, "a and 25 Public Schools and said
that the figures mentioned in the charges
relative to these payments were true.
Contracts with Martin, Kelly and Condor
for Public School No. 25 were offered in evi-
dence here
Witness, continuing, said that no contracts
had been filed in the Comptroller's Office in
reference to the amounts paid to parties men
toned in charge No. l. The charge includes
the -Four Hundred and Ninety-nine Dollar
items in the list of general charges
fac hot cid 10
specify the charges by numbers went
over each charge and numbered it.
Counselor Erwin showed Mr.. Hough charge
No. 2, relative to liquor license money used
for paving. There was only one contract
filed and that was for the sum of $7,201. rs.
Under charge No. 2, where amounts had
not been paid and warrants had not been
drawn, Mr.. Hough in answer to Mayor
Wanser's question why these amounts had
not been paid said that there was no money
at the time. Mr.. Hough was then questioned
on the charge that the Board ordered work
done which cost over $500 and which was
not given out by contract. Some of the
items were SO obscure that he could not tell
whether there was contract or not. He
could not tell whether there were contracts
for the amounts paid to P. H. Martin. The
item of ST, ,204.5 81 for water main through
Harrison and Kearney was waived by the
informants. Mr.. Erwin said that was all
right.
NO CONTRACTS ON FILE.
Mr.. Hough found no contract with P H.
Martin in the Water Department., nor with
the Jersey City Supply Company between
May II, 1891, and April II, 1893 There were
no agreements in his office between the board
and the National Docks Railroad in regard
to use of Brown place; with the Consolidated
certain streets of the city; with the junction
Railroad in reference to its use of Railroad
avenue, or with the Lehigh Valley Railroad
Company in reference to its use of Brown
place.
This testimony was to substantiate the
charge that the board had given away valu-
able franchises without any compensation to
the city.
Mr.. Hough said that he had not signed
warrants of the board for SAT, 14S. Is for work
on streets because the fund made from the
license money for the repair of streets was
exhausted
Cross-examined by Mr.. Corbin, Mr.. Hough
said that the sidewalk fund referred to was
$4,000 of the liquor licenses. All resolutions
for payments out of the sum were all ap-
proved by the Mayor.
Messrs. Cook and Dugan sat close by their
counsel and prompted them while conducting
the croSs-examination.
AMENDING THE CHARGES
Mr.. Erwin said he wanted to amend the
cndr8eS. lnero were some SIlghG errors
which had crept in the type written copies
while they were being copied. In Charge
two he wanted to strike out an item of 1863
to B. and M. Shannon, because the item had
been entered twice. In the matter of Brown
Place he wanted to amend Charge z by
changing the date of the first resolution Civ
ing the use of the street to the Railroad Com
pany from January 2S, 1892, to December 3,
1898, and adding an additional charge en-
bodying the resolution for the same purpose
dated January 2o, 1892
Mr. Erwin was allowed to make the
amendments.
LAWYER CURRIES EFFORT
Lawyer Mungo j. Currie was then sworn
He said he was the attorney for Henry Lem
beck and others in the attempt to stop the
National Docks Railroad Company cross
ing Brown place. On December 3, 1891, the
board, on a report of Street and Sewers
Committee, passed resolution giving the
road permission to cross Brown place.
Mr.. Corbin objected to Mr.. Curries saying
what the railroad company placed in Brown
place. He said that the Street and Water
Board were being tried for what they did
not but what the railroad company did
The Mayor overruled the objection, and
Mr.. Currie said the street was so feet wide
and owned by the city, and the board allow
ed the railroad to place solid abutments Is
feet wide from each side of the street, leav-
rx.rr xr<1fs fDNA Ax.-lx. L