Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-02-09
ANSWERS FILED.
NESSRS JOHN NJ. SWEENEY AND ". P. HUB
BARD
Reply to the Bill of the Wheeling Bridge Company,
in the Suit to Recover Si25OOO Alleged
10 Have Bssn Fraudulently 0btainsd.

Yesterday counsel for Messrs. w. 2.
Hubbard and John NJ. Sweeney, who,
with Messrs. Uptegraff, Ferris and
Kaufman, were made defendants in the
suit brought month ago by the Wheel
ing Bridge Company, to secure the sum
of S195, 900 alleged to have been fraudu-
lently obtained from the Bridge Com
pany in the payment for the bridges
built by that corporation 10 the Island
and to Etnaville, filed their answer in
the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court, and also demurred to the bill as
in sufficient, etc. The answers are very
yoluminous, and the two would prooa-
bly fill a page and half of this paper,
ONLY the utter impossibilty Of reprint
ing the papers prevents their reprodnc-
ton in full, as they are full OF interest
from start to finish.
Mr.. swEENEY's REPLY.
On the question of the general ale
cations contained in the bill, Mr.
Sweeney says
The defendant, saving and reserving
10 himself all and all manner OF ex-
ceptions, proceeds to state that he is I'M
able from recollection to recall the
dates of the organization OF the plain
tiff COMPANY and OF the various meet
ings AT which the Directors were
elected. and if these dates are i'm
portant he calls for proof OF this. Re
spondent AYERS he does not know
whether a meeting Of the Board of Di-
rectors was held February "a, 1870, as
stated in the bill, or whether the per-
sons alleged in the bill TO have been
present at that meeting were In Iact
there, and he calls for proof OF these
allegations. Respondent believes it to
be true that on the date last named the
construction and erection Of the plain
tiff's two bridges had not been com
menced, but respondent says that
il is not true that be-
fore that time this respondent,
either alone or in company with any
other person or persons, had estimated
that the cost of building the said
bridges and their approaches as they
were afterwards constructed, would
amount TO the sum of 1927, 900. On the
contrary, this defendant had never
made any estimate Of his own with rel
erence TO the cost Of building said
bridges and approaches, and he was not
aware at or prior to that time OF the
making by any person of any estimate
of the cost Of building the said bridges
and approaches which placed the cost at
less than the sum of 100000, including
the estimated amount for necessary
real estate, which was estimated at an
amount in the neigbborhood Of $50, goo.
"Respondent says that until the time
when the said Ferris q Kaufman sub
Sitted their bid for the building OF the
bridges. which was afterwards accepted
by the plaintiff, it was supposed by this
respondent that the bridges and neces-
sary real estate would not cost less than
S5OO,O0
Respondent says that the estimate
made by the said Ferris q Kaufman,
after the completion Of their final sur
yey. showed that the cost of the con-
struction of the said bridges, exclusive
of the real estate, would amount TO S452,-
600, and respondent says that he then
supposed and believed, and now believes
and alleges that that price was a fair
price, making just allowance for the
services of the said Ferris q Kaufman
for engineering and for the reasonable
and usual profits to which they were
entitled in the transaction,
at is not true that this defendant
and the defendants Ferris 81 Kaufman,
Hubbard and Uptegratf had secretly or
fraudulently or otherwise combined to-
gether and arrived at any such under
standing or agreement as is set forth In
the plaintiffs bill TO the effect that the
said Ferris & Kaufman should make an
| offer to the plaintiffs Board OF Direc-
tors to take the contract for the con-
| struction of the plaintiffs works for
the sum of 1852, 900, being S125,OOO In
excess of the estimated cost there
of. and il is not true that
this defendant, with the other
defendants named, or with any other
person, entered into any such or any
/ similar agreement or understanding
/ whatever. 1t is not true that there was
! any understanding between this de-
: PENDANT aud any other person Whatever
! that he. Hubbard and Uptegrah should,
bv their influence or votes, or otherwise,
secure the acceptance of the said or
any similar offer by the PLAINTIFFS Board
of Directors. 1t is rot true that any
such understanding or agreement was
carried out by the respondent or any
other person to his knowledge at the
meeting of February "a, 1890, men
toned in the bill, or any other meeting
of the plaintiffs Board of Directors. 1t
is not true that there was any
understanding. or agreement between
this defendant and the said Ferris,
| Kaufman, Hubbard and Uptegratf, or
between this defendant and any other
person or persons, that any difference
! between the contract price snd the cost
Of the construction Of the PLAINTIFF
work should be divided equally or 9TH
erwise between the said Ferris, kauf-
man, Hubbard, Uptegraff and this re-
spondent. Respondent denies that the
plaintiff has been defrauded out Of any
of the sum of Sl39, 900, or of any other
sum by any act Of his, or by any act OF
any other person or persons, so far as
this respondent knows. Respondent
believes it TO be true that the plain
tif's two bridges were paid for by the
plaintiff to the said Ferris 81 Kaut'
mann at the contract price Of $751;
600. but respondent says that,
rs was intended in the making of the