The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-08-13
a|AEy GOT ABOUT $4,000
3ans Verdict 81 the Jury in the
EaEs| High School Case An
nounced.
Nearly Q Hundred General and
Special Questions Answered
by the Jurors.
Building HAS Now Cost About $1ai,-
900 Instead OF $40, 900.

The high school building, which was {
have been put up for $4,000, by the tim
she verdict In favor Of the contractors
satisfied and the court coats and witnes
fees have been paid, will have cost the Hell
ena school district something like $l21,000
OF this amount $5S. 600 had been paid til
contractors MP to the time the board too
hold of the building to complete 1t; s23.W
was paid the contractor who furnished tn
stone; it cost tho board something owe
$4,000 to complete the building; the iur
decreed that there was still ahout $500
due tho contractors. J. d. Grant and $. 4
Whalen, for ext as and on account of TIN
original contract; and the witnesses ant
court costs will amoant to abou. Sl.Oo
more. Besides this the board has to pay
counsel fees, and the county is out $2.124
for pay of the jurors. The suit OF
the contractors was for $4,000
the jury awarded them just 1874. 939. Oh
The school board will probably not appeal.
The item allowed BY the jury to which they
object was that of SIS, 6G2.07 for changes in
the character of work in the outside stone
wall from rubble to rag rustic. The con-
tractors are not SO we'll satisfied with the
verdict. as they owe nearly $4,000 Of the
HluDuub VI tuo NaOutauu Natl0uRk Van IL, Suu
several thousands to people who furnished
materials; and besides that the firm of Toole
d Wallace filed n lien shortly after the YER
dict was rendered. claiming judgment to
the amount Of $4,S97.6l for reasonable
counsel fees for their part in the case. IT
10 not known, however, whether Wha!en "
Grant will appeal.
When Foreman jerry Collins, Of tho jury,
handed the sealed verdict into the district
court yesterday morning, and after it had
been read. Judge Hunt thanked the jurors,
and remarked that from the way they had
answered tbs questions submitted it was
evident they had very carefully gone into
tho whole matter and had considered
everything before coming to a conclusion.
He was satisfied they could only have given
the case the care they did by reason of the
fact that they were allowed to separate in
the evenings and had not been sent out and
kept together all the time during the very
hot weather, and thus forced to como to u
conclusion within a very short time. ''The
result is" he added. that the court will
pay q great deal moro attention to your
findings than if you had come to a conolu-
sion within fifteen or sixteen hours" The
jurors, through Foreman Collins, thanked
Judge Hunt for his courtesy in allowing
them to separate at night. and asked that
their thanks be entered on the records of
the court. which was done.
Twenty-one general questions and over
fifty special ones were given to the jury to
answer when they retired. AS some of the
special questions were subdivided it
brought the number OF questions up to
nearly a hundred. Each one was answered
eral findings the jurX said that fifteen
per cent would be 4 Reasonable profit on the
extra work done by the contractors. Tho
board. they say, i'll employing Architect
Paulsen, did not deprive him Of the power
given in the contract of valuing extra work
beforehand or Of valuing loss or damage by
delay. or of certifying additional time al
lowing for delay; no. did they deprive him
of the authority under that clause of tho
contract which required written notice to
him Of claims for extra work, and which re-
Quired a written order from him in advance
Of doing the work. They find that the
board alone modified these clauses in the
contract 30 as to dispense with their pro.
visions. One of the questions was whether
the board refused to refer to the architect
for valuation the contractors bills for
changes and additions. The jury say the
bill of july. 1891. was referred to the atchi-
tect for valuation and afterwards returned
by him for further information, and that
this was the only claim refe red to the ar
chitect; and they also find that the board
refused to asbitrate the contractors claims
for changes and additions. In a general
way the jury declare that the board refused
to pay the contractors any money for
changes or additions in the spring of 1892.
at which time there was due them the sum
of $21, POI. "A, including the l5 per GENT mar
gin of profit. 1t is also found that the
contractors proposed to either arbitrate
their bill or to have the board pay the Mon
tana National! bank q sufficient sum to cover
the cost of completing the building. or else
pay the actual bills necessary in the com
pletion of the work by the contractors; that
by so refusing and by notifying the Mon
tana National bnpk that there was nothing
due the contractors the board Crippled and
destroyed the b%usiness credit of the con-
t%raotols; also that it was this destruction Of
business credit that compelled the con-
tractors to top work on the building in
March, 1892.
The contractors, the jury further find.
stated to the board before the latter took
possession of the building that they were
unable to complete the work unless some
payments were made them; that until the
board seized the building on bfay =, 1892,
the contractors were ready to continue the
work TO completion. bu. were not able to do
so on account of the board refusing to pay
them the amounts due, being financially
unable to continue; that the contractors did
not abandon tho work prior to the time
the board took possession; Shat the
board seized the building against
the will of Whalen & Grant and were not
justified in doing 80; that Architect Paul
sen was justified in refusing to give the
certificate which the board demanded to
show they were entitled to take the build.
ing under the contract; and finally that
moneys due were withheld by an unreason-
sble and vexntious delay from Aug. 4,
1891. when the July bill was referred to the
auditing committee.
Then follow the detailed or special ques-
tions and the answers of the jury. 1t is
found that the value of labor done and ma
terial furnished by the contractors under
the original contract. exclusive of altsru-
tions or additional work. on May ., 1882.
when the board entered into possession,
was SIS, 549.98; that the value of the labor
on the extra foundation WEE So, l23. Is,
which latter amount WAS paid in full, The
vtrlous Items on which the contractors
claimed money ATE then taken Up in order.
Some of them arc allowed in full.
but most of them in part only,
while part of them arc disallowed alto
Rether. In thosa allowed in who,e or in
part the jury find that the work was done
by order of the board or somc one acting
by their authority. Among the amounts
allowed Hve these: For changes III boiler
room S1,o9i.b5, against 81. Goo asked; for
cement IS, O0O.eGi for extra walls under out
side entrance steps 81, 252, 30, the amount
asked; for damage by failure to promptly
furnish plans of changed .oof $500; for
failure to furnish stone Tor basement pie g
when requlred by contractors 81. H.. &c; for
rhnpnpa in work of ayterJpr yrnIlu fr,n