The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-06-21
THE ARCHITECT SUPREME.
gl'
One o. tho Contractors on the High
School Tsstifiss Ii Regard
TO Extras
Out Stone and Fine Briok the
Items Occupying Alton
ton Yesterday.
The Montana Company Again susd BY ths
~ Lsuts. This Tlms To- GROUSE
and DsnAges.

Stephen +. Whsisn. Of The contract
ors, was on the stand Ill day yesterday In
Judge HEATS department. Of ths district
court In the high school case. He took up
in turn The various items SUED on. and gave
what he considered their reasonable value.
subdividing each into labor, material, sts.
exactly what hs had been compelled 10 pay
for shs The records Of the schsol
board were introduced in evidence 10 show
that that body had ordered much Of she
work. Lawyer Wallace. for p~lsintifs. con-
tended that The various orders Of the board
ware circumstances Ia support Of . modih-
cation Of the contract BY direct setion Of
that body. and BY sommon consent. when
the item OF out stone for the GOAL ehuts was
reached. the board records we're read to
show that 1914 had been ordered paid
William Harrison for ''eut stone used
In the coal chute and NOT called
for In ths specifications" The matter Of
IRE brick for Huss led 10 considerable avau-
ment between counsel. Lawyer Walsh,
for the defense. objested 10 Whalsn tssti-
tying on this point on the ground that
though no material was specified In the
plans for The dusA. YET ths details called
for nrs brick; also that sven II II wsrs an
extra II had bsen named % suob. An u.
animation OF the original plans and spsoi-
hoations showed that. in the opinion Of The
court, msrshantable hard brick had bssn
called for. whils the details called ter are
brick. Judge Hunt d this point remarked
that hs mover saw . contract In which The
architect had been vested with more su-
prone power. Lawyer Walsh sontsndsd
that II the use Of drs brick was not IN 40
cordanos with the original specifications.
the contractors should hsvs that fact
known to the board whom hSs b,ick Was
ordered, and demanded pay for extras.
The contract expressly stated shat whore
the contractors and tho board disa-
greed on ths eest Of sx:sss. re
teos; thus showing tha. extras we're
to be ordered by the board q . price agreed
on with the contractor, or In case OF disa-
Rresmspt. fixed BY the architect. The
failure to make = claim for extras Of the
time ass brick WAS pus In ths huss VA in
tn: nature Of : y..vs.; LAVE. W.llae:
the contractors were In the nature Of an
order to do the work according 10 those
plans, and were 10 considered by them.
Judge Hunt said hs would allow the tssti-
mouy to 60 in at the time. n II 10 were
found later OF that 1t should not have been
admitted. it could be stricken ont and the
Jury instructed TO direRard II. Whalen
then, in answer to . question, said the OF
der to use IRE brick in the huss came from
Superintendent Williams. The defense
objected 10 any understanding to the effect
that the orders of Williams were binding
on the board. Lawyer Wallace said there
was nothing in the contract to indicate who
had the right to give tho orders for changes.
Judge Hunt said Williams was superin-
tendsnt and allowed the testimony 10 20 in.