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


ond Mr.. John NJ. Sweeneyto the suit oil
tho Wheeling Bridge Company for dam
age, we're fled in the office Of the clerk
If fine circuit court, At the Same time
demurrers to the petitions were put I'M
alleging that tho claims OF the plant
jgs, even ii all true, were not sufficient
in law to establish their claims for
damages,
The answers are in many respects
identical, and both are very voluminous
The following condensations contain
the substance OF the papers, however,
with the exception OF unimportant de-
tails:
Mn. HupBARp's ANSWER.
Tho separate answer OF Hon, W, r
Hubbard says; 1t is true as alleged in
said bill that on February "a, 1890,
when tho directors met, the construc.
lion of The company's two bridges had
not been commenced, but 1t is not true
that mis- defendant, alone or in COM
many With other defendants, had estl.
mated tho cost of bridges and APP
proaches at 1897 900, had never made
And was not capable OF making any esti-
mate, and he was not then aware OF any
estimate made by any person which
nlaced the cost at less than 100000, in
Guiding real estate, the cost OF which
wos pIaced at $4,000. He supposed
onI expected that the bridges and up!
nroaches would cost about $i50,000.
Until Tho contract was made with Fer.
ris & Kaufman this plaintiff believed
S.l5O.OOO to bo Il fair cost and to this
lime las no personal knowledge that 1t
was not, or that it was more than the
work coat Ferris & Kaufman, with
usnnland reasonable profits added.
Itis further alleged that it is not
true that this defendant Conspired with
6. W. q. Ferris, Gustave Kaufman,
" D. Uptegraf and John NJ. Sweeney
to take tho contract for Sl25,0O0 in ex.
cess Of the estimated cost. No portion
Of such understanding was arrived at
and no similar agreement made or car.
ried out. ~,
Attention ia called to the fact that II
is not stated in the complaint what Is
meant by the averment that the bridge
was not worth and did not cost the con-
tract pricc-to whom it was not worth
that much, etc. On the contrary, the
respondent believes the bridges are
worth TO the plaintiff much moro than
their cost, whether cons idered as cash
or regard be had, as 1t should be, TO the
manner OF the payments actually made.
At tho time the contract was made the
Company's stock had no market value,
Tho stock and bonds would have been
yalueless had the work failed OF Cam
pletion, and at all stagos Of the work 1t
was hasarlous aud liable to DO disas-
uousty affected by floods'or accident.
Another thing affecting the value OF
tho property was the opposition oil the
Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Com
pany.
Respondent donies that by any act OF
his or Of which lie lad knowledge
plaintiffs were defrauded OF any money,
and says the other directors had all tho
knowledge as to cost and details that hc
had.
1t is also denied that there was any
combination to make subscriptions to
the stock, as alleged, and 1t is stated
that there was us much concert OF ac-
ton in that regard between the dc.
iendant, Hubbard, aud the parties
plaintiff as between him and tho other
defendants. The only knowledge said
Hubbard hud Of any arrangement with
tho street car companies was oil the
present traffic arrangement, and that it
was the desire OF these companies to Sc.
cure way ACROSS the rivers which led
10 the formation OF the contract Tho
allegation Of an agreement to place q
majority of tho stock in certain hands
is absurd, in Wow OF the action oil tho
board conveying half OF it to Ferris q
Kauifmann. He had no knowledge OF
any arrangement 10 have mimic quar-.
rel in tho board meeting.
While said Hubbard was not secret
party to amy agreement, he did as coun-
sol prepare the copy Of the contract TO
be signed by plaintiff and said Ferris &
Kaufman.
Tho earnings OF the bridges have been
about 6 per cent per annum, besides tho
interest on 100000 bonds, and tho
bridges are worth all they cost.
The $500 paid on his stock by Ferris
& Kaufman he alleges was in considora.
ton Of their being given m interest in
tho Wheeling Terminal company, and
had no reference TO the plaintiff com.
pany.
Plaintiff j. Park was in a position
TO know the business Of Ferris & KNut1.
mann intimately, respondent insisted
upon his accepting the position, and
plaintiffs Schmulbach and Hughes were
intimately associated with Park, and II
there had been any corrupt under.
standing they would have known IL.
At that time these three plaintiffs had
all the knowledge they now possess US
TO any contracts or agreements.
1t Ia also recitcd that a demand was
mRdo on tho plaintiff tor an oppor-
tunlty to copy from tho company'g
minute books, but was refused, and
therefore no is not able TO answer in
soma respects as definitely and com.
pleely as ho wished.
A mart Of the averinents Of Mr.. Hub.
hard's answer arc also contained IN
that OF Mr.. John NJ, Sweeney, and tho
details arc given little more fully
below;
Mn swESSEY's DEreNsE.
Tho scporato answer Of John NJ.
Sweeney to tho bill Of complaint OK.
hibiicd against him aud others by tho
Wheeling Bridge compuny!
This defendant saving and resorvinO
to himself all aud all nannor OF cxccp.
lions, otc,, for answer to the snld bill
eays; This respondent Ia unable to
state from recollection that tho dates Of
the organization OF tho plaintiff COM
pany and tho various meetings at which