The record-union., 1896-07-01
CROLY'S TRIAL Is BEGUN.
He Files an Answer With the Board Of
Of Trustees.
Allegations That Members of the
Board Are Too Prejudiced
to Act Fairly.

The Board of Trustees held a special
meeting last night for the trial of the
charges made against Street Superin-
tendent Croly by one L. B. Washburn.
The charges against Mr.. Croly were
read by Clerk Desmond, as heretofore
published in this paper.
Clerk Desmond read the answer filed
by Croly. It declares the proceeding to
be of a judicial character, and demands
that the accused be tried by jury, hold
ing that the board has no authority to
try him.
without waiving his objection that
the board has NO jurisdiction Croly de-
murs to the several charges made
against him, all of which he specifically
denies.
The answer recites the fact of the re-
cent hearing in the Superior Court, and
OF his appeal from the ruling of that
court to the Supreme Court, and con-
tends that the board has no right to
proceed further in the matter until a
final decision is obtained.
Croly alleges that L. 3. Washburn,
the person who signed the accusations
against him, is but "a mere figurehead,
and that the real accuserS are Trustees
G. E. Leonard, Robert E. Kent and
James II. Devine; that they dictated the
accusations and procured Washburn to
sign them; that Washburn is only os-
tensibly the accuSer and that the case is
actually being prosecuted by the three
Trustees, and for that reason they are
disqualified from sitting in judgment or
taking any part in the proceeding.
Croly further denies that he has been
guilty of any misconduct or malfeasance
IN office, or that he has violated the city
charter, or that any of his acts as Su-
perintendent of Streets has been detri-
mental to the public service or injurious
to the welfare of the city.
1t is also denied that the defendant
had hauled or caused to be hauled
twenty loads, or any number of loads
of dirt ito the premises of the Sacra-
mento Lumber Company but admits
that some dirt may have been hauled
there which had been scraped up on the
streets while they were being repaired,
but that if such was the case 1T was
without his knowledge or consent.
WaShburn was at that time foreman Of
q gang of men working ON the streets,
the answer goes on to state, and the de-
fendamt had been informed that he
caused the dirt in question to be hauled.
1t is further stated that it has been the
custom to dump street scrapings upon
private property, and that the work had
always been done by men and teams
employed by the city in cases where the
dirt was not paid for. 1t was cited that
in 1895 dirt scnaped from the streets
81 No of rT>1-1ISt
Devine and under his direction dumped
there, and that the work had been done
by teams and laborers in the employ
OF the city. and that Devine had not re-
irnbursed or compensated the city for
the same in any manner whatever.
1t is further denied that he ever placed
any wagon beds belonging to the city
upon his own wagons, but that he had
two wagon beds constructed on behalf
OF the city, and that th,, beds now belong
to the city He had the beds placed
upon wagons, one of which belonged to
E. NJ. Leitch, the other to R. c. Irvine,
and that the wagons are now being used
by the city.
He denies that he is using or ever has
used on the streets any wagons or teams
in which he owns any interest, and that
ne mas ever cOlieCleQ amy money IrO1ii
the city for the use Of any property in
which he was in any way interested.
1t is further denied that two white
wash brushes were sold to the city, but
1t is admitted that Croly did present
such a claim, which was vetoed by the
Auditor. In defense of his action In
purchasing the brushes in question,
Croly alleges that he was directed by
the Board Of Trustees to have a fence
on the Y-street levee whitewashed, and
was ordered to have 1t done by day s
work" and that the Chairman of the
committee authorized him to procure
the proper materials with which to
have the work done Beside barrels,
buckets and lime, he had bought four
brushes at a cost of 81 each, and that
the board subsequently rescinded its
order to have the work done by days
work" and ordered it done by contract
and let to the lowest bidder. In order
that the city might be put to no loss,
the defendant had induced the con-
tractor to make use of the material and
implements he had purchased, and that
the city had charged the contractor for
the material used, including the four
whitewash brushes, and deducted the
amount from his contract price the rea-