Kansas City daily journal., 1896-10-27

considerably in excess of that showed by
the books. We finally, after hearing all the
evidence, for We were empowered TO sub
pcena witnesses, found for Mr.. Cunning
ham for $50 j mace a personal and very
thorough inspection of the foundation of
the house and found that more masonry
and brfckwork was charged for than was
actually put in the foundation.
II see that c.. w. Chase is mentioned as
Mr. Cunningham's attorney. / never met
him IN the matter at all. The late Ben
jamin A. Bartlett appeared for Mr. Cum
niEgham at the arbitration proceedings.
Later in other proceedings Fred K. Gustin
acted as his attorney. John w. Woffons,
row judge of the criminal court, appeared
for Lyons.
Some peculiar showings came out in the
examination of the labor charges. The time
book showed that on August 20 James
Burke had earned $50; the receipt turned
over by Lyons to Mr.. Cunningham for that
date was for se5.75: August q, Burke was
entitled to $40. according to the time book;
Lyons receipt showed $50 paid; September
3 the time book showed 1915; Lyons re-
ceipt showed SIS. Here was a discrepancy
in this one account of $50 more money re-
ceipted for than the time book showed
Burke had earned. On September II the
time book showed that one Smithbauer
had. earned $3.50; Lyons receipt showed
sl7.50; on September "a the time book show
ed there was due him $3.50; the receipt
turned over to Mr.. Cunningham, according
: to which Lyons drew money from the bank
against Mr.. Cunningham, was for SIS. a
discrepancy of 5000 Identical figures in
tic case of John Kasson were discovered.
Still more peculiar were receipts aggre-
eating Sl05, for which the time book showed
no labor at all performed. a workman
named Lindsey was 'receipted' for to the
amount of $13.25 for work on the barn; one
Williams, for work on the barn. SIS; Will
;,y~ f,v- x,ovlrn fHa & m.
C. White. for work, not specified, $l260;
NJ. Bryan, for work on the barn, $lS.75. and
another charge of $l3: James Bailey, for
work on the house. $50; w. Clark, for
work, not specified, $14.So; total, s105.1o.
Not a single one of these charges is cor
roborated by the time book Of the fore
man.
81 understand that Lyons represented
that there would be. no fee for architects
services, and he submitted a rough plan
which had no specifications and was worth
nothing at all. When proceedings were in
stituted. however, Lyons put in a bill for
SEQ for architects fees on the strength of
the worthless plans he submitted The
whole proceeding was to me very plain
and does not reflect very creditably on Ly-
ons, to say the least. 1 should call it by a
very common and well understood name"
substantiated by j. NJ. vaught.
Mr.. ]. NJ. vaught, of 1858 Chestnut street.
who was the brick mason in charge CT the
brick work on the houses built by Can
didate w. F. Lyons and c. A. Cunning
ham, knows much concerning the char
acter of the transactions between the two
men and was one of the important wilt
nesses at the arbitration and gave the
testimony that was largely effective in
determining the settlement made. He
talked about the controversy last evening
with reporter for the Journal and said:
Il was employed by Mr.. Lyons to take
charge of the work of two houses. One
house was started. the walls were half
way uD the first story and much of the
material for both houses was on the ground
at the time. l never knew Mr.. Cunning
ham IN the deal at all. During the con-
tract we all signed our pay receipts In
blank and the body of the receipt was
filled in afterwards. That Is not good busi-
ness, / know, but at that time business
was rushing and that custom prevailed on
many buildings. When we finished the two
buildings We were all paid in full and after
tina. was done Mr.. Lyons asked me for my
time book and turned it over to him. He
wanted it for some purpose and got it.
When the arbitration came on and asked
him for 1t. failed to get 1t and he did
not produce it during the investigation
and 1 was forced to rely on my memory
and some private memoranda for accur-
ateness in checking the time as it was
gwen in the receipts shown by Mr.. Gun
ningham. My time book did not agree with
the receipts In the possession of Mr.. Cum
ningham, as furnished by Mr.. Lyons; they
were larger in many instances than the
time book and my memoranda showed and
I SO stated at the hearing. One week in
particular that put in on the house owned
by Lyons was charged as against Cum
ningham, and material that was put en-
tirely in Lyons house was charged In the
bills against Cunningham. 1t is not true that
ordered the material. did order a small
lot of sand and lime, but the other material
was furnished by order of Mr.. Lyons and
that which I ordered was by his instruc-
ticn. / know that the amounts stated in
the receipts for labor held by Mr.. Cunning
| ham were larger in many instances than
the sums paid the men for the time en-
ployed."