The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-04-03
USUAL STUMP
That EveryTopekaImprovement
Runs Up Against
Els an Envious Concern, Yclept
Richardson s. Young.
ITS INJUNCTION SUIT
lis Heard 10y Judge Hazen in the
District Court.
Enemies of the Bridge Still
Fighting It.
Al RIDE ON A RAIL
Ought to Be the Effective
Way
To Stop Long Eared Instructors
Of Public improvements.
lis Heard 10y Judge Hazen III the
District Court.
Enemies of the Bridge Still
Fighting 1t.
( RIDE ON A RAIL
Ought to Be the Effective
Way
To Stop Long Eared Obstructors
Of Public Improvements.

The argument of the bridge njunc-
ton case was heard today by istrict
Judge Hazen-
Richardson e Young, VINO want lne
county commissioners enjoined from
letting the contract to Keepers &
Thacher. the lowest bidders. were rep
resented BY Cliff Histed w. Fl. Ros-
sington and @. j. Dallas. IT, G. Lari-
mer and A. B. Quinton assisted County
Attorney Stafford in defense Of the com
missioners.
Some evidence was introduced before
the argument was begun Mr. Histed
stated that as soon as the board was
enjoined from letting the contract it
retaliated by throwing out the bid of
Richardson & Young. because they had
not lived up to the advertised specih-
cations in depositing a check for $4,000
On some Topeka bank with the bid.
He called County Clerk Chas- T. Nc
Cabe.
did YOU have a conversation with
Mr.. Abner C. Young about this check
II did. He asked me this morning
that if the bids were opened if a cerh
fled check for $1,000 on the Garden City
Banking & Trust company of Chicago
would be accepted with his bid instead
of on a Topeka bank. as he had not
had time to get a draft I took the
check to Commissioner Rogers and he
said it would be all right. and I told
1Ir. Young what Mr. Rogers had said. p
la the cross-examinatiO zion Mr. McCabe
said.
1.-THE board was not in session when
you asked Mr.. Rogers about this
check2"
mo. There was neither of the other
commissioners about"
Mr. Mueser. of New York, who has
the power of attorney to let contracts
for the assignee Of the Melan patent,
testified that Keepers & Thacher. OF
Detroit. were to receive one-third the
royalties. That the Melan company
had no written contract with them but
simply verbal agreement. The
amount of the royalties was determined
by the Detroit firm. and his company
had nothing whatever to do with III.
W. II. Keepers of Detroit. testified
that the amount Of royalties which
they We're to charge was stated to the
county commissioners at the time the
plans and specifications were submit
ted.
The contention of Richardson &
Young is that Keepers e Thacher. by
virtue of their having been emDlOc cd
to prepare plans and specifications.
We're employees Of the county commits
sioners, and had no right to bid for a. he
@ oA el -LliS lAe DtldSe- Coun-
ty Attorney Stafford maintained that
the service of Keepers & Thacher end
ed when the plans We're complete T.
and they were no more in the employ
of the commissioners at the time of
the bids than Richardson & Y0une
The county has a right to save S6.
600. the difference between the two bids
he said.
The question of the legality Of the
bonds was also brought in by the
plaintiffs They claim that the peonIe
of this county had no right to vote fol
patented bridge
The arguments We're expected to last
most Of the day Judge Hazen viii moi
give his decision until Monday.