The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1895-12-04
BOROUGH LOSES, rs USUAL.
An Award Given in the Case Brought
by Stauffer.
THE AUTHORITIES ARE ACCUSED
While the Claim is a Small One, the Prin-
ciple Involved viii Lead to Pro
longed Litigation Gouging
Alleged by the Borough.

j. II. Filbert, Charles Graver and Col j. S.
FricS, arbitrators in the case of George II
Stauiier against the Borough of Shenandoah
yesterday made an award in favor Of th,
plaintifffor the full amount claimed, So II
B. Graefr and H. o. Bechtel represented tn,
plaintiff and Borough Solicitor Pomeroy ap
peared against the claim
/ The amount involved in the case is so in
| significant that the average citizen will No
doubt conclude that the cheapest and best
way out of the matter is for the borough to
pay the claim, yet the circumstances of the
case are such that the result has aroused ex-
members as we'll as the present members OF
Council, and there is no doubt that the claim
will be fought through the courts.
From the point of view taken by the bor.
ough officials the case certainly iustides in
dignation They claim that in 1891 they
employed Stauiler to survey land required
for the water works and for that he wa.
paid SIS. Subsequently it became necessary
to have streams surveyed and other work
performed and Stauder was employed at th,
| rate Of $40 per day, receiving SIP. and 81.
at different times for the work and S75 fol
making maps, etc. For three years after the
latter sum was paid Stauhcr made no claim
against the borough Meanwhile the joint
committee on public water works settled all
its accounts and went out Of existence.
Last February man named Boyer rcsid-
ing at Sunbury, made a claim upon the Dor
ough for S75 for making the maps for which
Stauiier had been paid the same amount, and
Boyer was referred to stautfer Nothing more
was heard of the matter until a few weeks
ago, when Staufier sued the borough for the
SO.
No party connected with a law suit ever
went into court with more confidence than
the borough representatives had when they
went before the arbitrators yesterday. They
were ready TO show that Stauffer had been
paid for all claims he presented; that he had
been paid $75 for making maps; that for three
years he made no claim upon the borough,
and also that the borough had never dealt
with Boyer, directly or indirectly.
Ordinarily this would appear to be strong
case against the claim, but StaufIer, it ap-
pears ike BIele l1dIle S Onluee, laQ q llttlC
joker up his sleeve and told the arbitrator,
that it was true he had been paid for all the
services he personally rendered the borough
but the joint committee had authorized him
to employ assistance and that employment
accounted for the Buyer claim.
The claim was a surprise to the borough
and it was not prepared to meet it, but will
new get together the members of the joint
committee, it is said, and prove when the
case comes up in court that no additional
help was authorized
The point in the case is, where will litiga
tiOn with stautier end if his present claim i.
sustained? Boyer has stated that Staufel
aid not make any maps, yet there were a
number of maps made in addition to those
covered by the S75 claim, and what will pre-.
vent Stautier from coming in later and claim
ing that the other maps were made by as.
sistants who have not been paid. Toput the
defense briefly and pointedly, it is alleged
that an attempt is being made to gouge the
borough.