Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-11-21
VERDICT For PLAINTIFF.
The Edge Moor Bridge Works Win a suit
Against IA Nuighboring County.

Against IA Noighboriug County.
The suit Of the Edge Moor Bridge
Works vs.. Delaware county, Pa,
which was tried at West Chester, be-
fore Judge Waddell, was concluded
Thursday. A verdict for the plaintiff
was rendered. Tho West Chester News
says;
plaintiff to recover a. claim for tho
preparation of specifications for a
bridge on Second street near Eddystone
in the city of Chester. The case was
brought here for trial upon change of
venue granted by Judge Clayton of
Delaware county.
William II. Connell, the treaourer
of the bridge company, was the first
witness. He stated that the plans and
specifications were prepared by tho
company the represented, but had not
been paid for. He also stated that
The Edge Moor Bridge Works is a
corporation chartered under the laws of
the State of Delaware and doing bust
ness at Edge Moor, New Castle county,
said State. Charles W. Bryan, civil
engineer of the company, was the next
witness. He gave the circumstances of
an interview which took place between
him and tho commissioners of Della
ware county at the time that his com
pany was authorized to draw the speci-
| iications.
''The claim of the plaintiff was that
for such specifications the compensa-
tion should be 21a per cent of the cost
OF the structure. The bridge in ques-
| ton was built at cost of 500, 900.
| This would make bill of S725, but
the plaintiff claimed $50 more for the
services of an engineer in furnishing
estimated cost in putting iron plate
floor in Second street bridge over Ches-
ter Creek. This made their claim $3.50,
with interest from May 31st, 1892.
1.-The defence mado by the county
commissioners was that they employed
a man named Roberts TO prepare plans
and specifications for the bridge in
question and paid him for so doing.
| That if he employed this firm or any
one else to draw specifications he
would be personally responsible for
them; that others beside the plaintiff
company bid for the erection of the
bridge in question, and each ono fur
nished his own plans and bid for the
construction of the bridge upon the
model of the plans thus exhibited ;
that as a matter of fact they let the
contract to another party on plans other
than those prepared by this plaintiff.
| Among other witnesses called was
Joseph Hill. Jr., who, for % years, has
been clerk for the county commissioners
of Chester county. The purpose in call
ing Mr.. Hill was to have him testify
as to the way in which contracts are let
in West Chester, and also the value of
services such as we're claimed in this
case. Counsel for the plaintiff ex-
copied to this and the exception was
sustained. Tho Court hold that no
matter what the method of letting con-
tracts in Chester county might be. ii
had no bearing on this case. As to the
value of services the Court held that
no amount of observation as to charges
made would qualify this witness or
any one else in his position to testify to
the value of the services rendered.
Only an architect can know the amount
of labor required and the skill neces-
sary to prepare plans and specifications
like this. That Just as we'll might one
with no knowledge Of medicine fix the
rate of DOCTORS fee.
Just before court adjourned ver-
dict for plaintiff in the sum Of SS7
was rendered. Fronfleld and Broomal
for plaintiff: Hall and Darlington fol
defendant. All the counsel are of Della.
ware county,"