The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-04-26

pairs on schools which called Tor ten
| toned six. He approved of the contract
in its legal form as City Attorney ana
assumed that the specifications. COMING
and consequently he did not compar the
THE STATE RESTS,
The case for the people. elosed tn1s
morning with testimony from y. =.
Wortendyke, an expert called to deter
G %inf tne a9 mond5n % It T School aAS 30. IS, and
a few questions put to the Contract4a
about the assignment of his claims to
the First National Bank.
plunging into their defence. recalled Clerk
Bouton, who explained why the con- con-
than $500. 1t was done to avoid ina.et-
ment, and in many cases it was perIeeI-
y Just, ven ven for T; the t fity' the TO s stow case
defence. Mr.. Corbsn made a long. techni-
cal 1e1ec IS bo 70 MT pa wlnlle Etc.. pu some Of
want, and others wholly outside Of the
Corbin began his opening address
At the outset. Mr.. Charles Corbin care
| fully analysed the charges against the
| defendants as mentioned in the lnd.ct-
ment, and pointed out that. the state
must first show that the io; city t Was ! ner
to defraud, and that the fraud was caIa
ried out or executed. Have they done
The Prosecutor lays. great stress on
| something entirely outside of the indict-
ment. Instead of relying on fraua, ne
| of the five hundred dollars advertising
| law Now. gentlemen, we deny we have
| even violated that act on fair interpreta-
| ton and consideration of its provisions.
AS a general rule, defendants may not
| saw that they didn't know the law, but
in a conspiracy they may say they rTeae
| may say they were acting in good faith,
\ and were mistaken. But that is OUT
of the case. n we shall Genuine OUT
me say tina these charges are all defec-
i nwg in 1ee to essf these 1 d%efendants fraud.
They are lacking in this vital part
Where is there any evidence OF fraud
which can be laid at the doors OF these
| gentlemen? None at all.
DEFENDANTS PROOFS.
W propose going s, into danv,a asph at
that the agreement was in the best, m
terests of the city and the work done
was of the highest character. As the
this contract we will shoy you that it
was perfectly open, fair and above board.
It is true that the Supreme Court ad-
was nothing in the decision rejecting,
on these gentlemen.
30 Then nsn.y We win vi tgg go . Ps5,! the sseb 5es5ion as Of
prove satisfactorily that the apparent
the schools IN the contracts and m spe eaa
other matters there was no mon
seying with the contracts ssn4isms or spe fSs
papers were altered they were altered
after they left the hands Of the board.
The. prosecution has exhibited extreme
province, and if they or tie Grand Jury
aesoo Tant way to di anow t heyta ask Mr. aPou Lo shs
H. Broome, the architect, to explain?"
Mr.. Corbin's address was brief, and by
an N evidentiy favorable effect on the
SCHOOL CONTRACT EXPLAINED:
school contracts and the specifications
in which repairs Cor ten schools were
named on the contracts. and only six
Mr.. Louis H. Broome testified that by
the request of the defendants he exam
med ten public schools, They were in a
ed to find out precisely what was neces-
sary for repairs. He found that carpen-
ter, mason and plumbing work were re
CURED in ten schools and steam heating
| in six. BY a clerical error on the part
of the engineers clerk, who filled out
the s f9rms, n it aapRgea 4bede that renair the ,n whela
of being divided, as above.
Mr.. Winfield, in cross-examination,
cG To stre Sgfhe the the e%xPeana'e on this point.
Mr.. Corbin called J. G. Mulhearn and
? F. Martin. who secured the steam
only bid on SIX schools. according to the
proposals, and not on ten.
ss ibid No you W slgn tie h e0pt bafs for y,rt, ten.
replied in the negative.
Having knocked out the bottom of this
charge Of fraud, Mr. Corbin proceeded
Gil supplied to the city by the Jersey
oil was anywhere between t~hirty-fve
prices. in his estimation, were fair.
Senator W. D. Edwards was the next
witness; He said he ,eeodh had been corggora-
."You are familiar with. the $500 fund
for si~dewalks?" asked Mr.. corbin.
Was it your opinion that Muldoon's
SUM-?
\ replied Mr.. Edwards, who then continued
with facts about the work lone by the
| Sidewalk Inspector.
The next move of the defence was to
explain he alleged tobbery in the laying
was insisted by the State that the price
of work was excessive, and the work
itself not what It was claimed to be. Mr..
Philip Tumulty, ex-Street Commissioner,
1 civ ooA SIO1 ~ Ia ollllli1 vi Day
onne, testified thai the work was wen
done, and the prices charged were GER
tainly not excessive.
ALL ABOUT ASPHALT.
To rebut the charges against the Com
misSsoners IN the asphalt contracts, Mr..
Collins called City Attorney Spencer
Weart, who was allowed, after vigorous
| opposition from Mr.. Winfield, to state
that he had made an Investigation In
the asphalt matter after a consultation
between Mayor Wanser and Ch.ef En-
g-neer Ruggles.- As a result of that In.
vestigation he eMr. Weart) drew a reso-
bidders had the experience and the other
| the better material. He had a consulta-
! tfon with Commissioner Cook and read
a report of the Trinidad Company.
II told Mr.. Cook said Mr.. Weart,
that on the list of directors of the
| Trinidad Company was a Matthew Tay-
lor, who / found has assigned because
he had evaded his contract to pave
| Eighth avenue in New York" Mr..
Weart continued that he advised Mr..
Cook to be careful with the Trinidad
| Company. Mr.. Wear also saw Mr.. Mad
den. and advised both to close up the
whether or not the bid was high, if they
considered it was in the best interests of
the city. Hence the Commissioners took
action in accordance. with that advice.
w rest" suddenly SAID Mr.. Collins,
and now for taIkee talkee.
1t was agreed to close this afternoon,
so far as summing up is concerned.
DEFINING THE ISSUE.
Immediately after luncheon Prosecutor
Winfield briefly defined the points
he you'd lay ITO the jury; They