The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1893-03-14

bodied in the order of the Court, was in
competent, as it assumed that the witness
was an expert in attempting to show what
actuated his fellow members in voting on
the question.
Josiah H. Pancoast was the first witness
called. He said he was present at the
July meeting when the bids for stone
roads were rejected "What reason had
the Board for rejecting these bids ?" he
was asked.
Mr.. Sooy objected because the Court
had no power to require a member to dis
close the action of the Board; because
the question calls for an individual opin-
ion and because it assumes the witness to
be an expert on what is in the minds of
his fellow-members.
Mr.. Hendr1ckson contended that the
question only called for propounding
fact, which was what reason the Board
had for rejecting the bids. He saw no
reason why any member might not state
what reason the Board had for its action.
Mr. Sooy replied that the question did
not call for fact, but for reason as to
what, in the judgment of the witness, in
fluenced the Board. The latter could not
give the reasons that influenced his fell
low-members unless they had told him.
These objections were all entered on
the record, and the examination of the
witness was continued.
NJ - l. -
what actuated the Board, as no reasons
were assigned.
EDO you know of any good cause the
Board had to reject the bids ?" was the
next question, to which Mr.. Sooy OBJ
jected, because this was not the question
ordered by the Court Mr.. Pancoast
replied that he did not know of any good
cause.
Marshall A. Loveland was next exam
ined. In his opinion the bids we're too
high, although he admitted he never had
any experience in building stone roads.
He also thought the proposed roads would
cause too much burden on the tax payers.
Caleb G. Kinsley could only give his
own reason for voting to reject the bids.
He had seen accounts that roads had
been built for 50 or So cents square
yard. He did not know whether these
roads were close to quarries.
Edwin Wainwright did not know what
actuared the board in voting to reject the
bids. He thought the bids were too high
Charles K. Vansciver said the Board
did not give any reason for its action, nor
did he hear any individual reason ex-
pressed. The committee had complied
with the law. and the bidders were re-
sponsible men.
Benjamin ID. Haines thought the county
could not afford to build the roads. He
thought there was too much difference in
the bids, and in his opinion the Board ex-
ercised its discretion fairly and honestly.
William H. Ellis could not tell what
governed the Board in Its action, but he
thought the bids we're too high. He had
no knowledge of what stone roads cost,
but Mr.. Gale. of Northampton, had shown
that the stone roads of Mount Holly were
built great deal cheaper than the bids
put in at the July meeting indicated. He
also thought the matter was sprung upon
the people rather suddenly and they
should have had time to consider the sub
ject. He was not opposed to stone roads.
F. d. Perkins, S. s. Taylor, F. B. Lam
bert, Japhet B. Joyce and Frank B. Dem
mis-, knew of ne good reason why the bids
should have been rejected.
James " Cavileer, W. P. Younker,
Bradford W. Storey. James K. Naylor.
George Williams, Stokes Prickitt. R. M.
Dunphey and Watson 7. sooy we're I'M
able to tell why the Board rejected the
bids, but each was willing to give his own
personal reason. None of them thought
it would do any harm to give the subject
more consideration.
Henry G. Llppincott said no general rea
son for rejecting the bids was given. He
thought they were too high, and based
his opinion on the cost of the Marlton
and Camden turnpike He thought the
Board exercised its discretion honestly
and fairly. He would have voted for
stone roads if the bids had been low
enough and not SO many roads applied
for. There were four roads and four
bidders. each getting contract. There
was not enough competition.
Enoch Evans said he told the Board
what IL had cost to build the Camden and
Westfeld road, and that the bids present
ed at the July meeting were lower than
that work cost. There were no good rea-
sons for rejecting the bids, and none were
expressed.
This ended the evidence. The deposi-
tons will be presented to the Supreme
Court. which body will decide whether
the evidence is sufficiently strong to cause
the issuing of mandamus.