The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-19
He Answers the Complaint Of
Wesley Mock Against
the City.
COLLISION OF BIDDERS DENIED
Despite the Litigation the Water
Works System Has Now
Been Completed.

SANTA ROSA, CAL, Jan. 18.-Somewhat
of a sensation was created here last night by
the publication in an evening paper of
what purported TO be the deposition of
Robert Effey, in the case of Wesley Mock
VS.. The City of Santa Rosa. A large roll
of papers, said to be the deposition OF
Effey, was received by the County Clerk
here recently, but as it was tightly sealed,
and could be opened only by an order of
where court, many people are wondering
the information as to the contents of the
documents was obtained.
1t will be remembered that there were
three separate efforts made to issue bonds
for the construction OF municipal water
system, the original issue being repealed
by the City Council and the Supreme
Court declaring the second Issue void. 1t
was not generally known here that third
issue of bonds had been made until some
time in October last, when the people of
Santa Rosa were surprised TO learn that
bonds for $I65, 900 had been sold and the
contract for the construction of the water
works let for $161, 900. This report was
quickly confirmed by active work upon the
principal streets being commenced.
Shortly after work had been begun
it became generally known that Robert
Effey, Mayor of Santa Cruz, was the pur-
chaser OF the bonds for $170, 800; also that
Mr.. Effey was the lowest bidder for the
construction of the water system, but that
he had assigned the contract to Paul 3.
Perkins.
On October Is, 1895, suit against the city
was commenced by Wesley Mock, praying
for a decree declaring the contract with
Effey void. asking that the bonds be re-
called from New York and for final
injunction enjoining the city from letting
any contract until the bonds were regu.
larly sold and the money paid into che
treasury. The complaint, which was
voluminous one, set forth among other
things that the bidding had not been COM
petltive; that the bids of CARAT & Co. of
$154,5 500 and that of Effey for $161, 600 were
the only bids received, and that they were
cOllusive; that the bids were in the same
handwriting; that A. L. Fish stood ready
and willing to bid as soon as the
money was in the treasury, and
that Fish was willing to construct
the work for $4,000, and to execute and
deliver to the city good and sufficient
bond for 100000; that Effey had given no
bond; that the warrant for $161 900 was
delivered to Effey without any claim and
demand being presented to the city; that
the Mayor and Council had agreed that no
bids but Efey's should be received, and
that they had agreed to sell and deliver
the bonds to Effey before they were in ex-
istence.
To all of this the city by its attorney, W.
F. Cowen, and Thomas Rutledge, special
counsel, interposed variety OF diIatory
pleas. Legal skirmish was finally ended
however, by a stipulation of all the parties
to have the case tried ito its final deter
mination" before Judge Daingerfeld of
San francisco.
Meanwhile the defendants attorneys
interposed a sweeping demurrer, declaring
that the complainant did not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action :;
that there was-a misioinder of defendants !;
that there was non-joinder of defendants
in leaving out the Seligmans of New York;
that the several causes had been improperly
united, and the complaint was uncertain
and ambiguous, etc.
After lengthy arguments upon both sides
the matter was submitted 10 Judge Dain-
gerheld, who soon thereafter rendered the
now celebrated opinion which has caused
so many conflicting reports in the papers
and occasion ed so much discussion among
lawyers.
A careful reading of the opinion shows
that Judge Dangerfeld held thatthere was
no misjoinder or non-joinder of defend
ants. The fact that there was no money
in the treasury was not iurisdictional
defect.
cit is proper exercise of legislative dis
IN with "a
take bonds in payment or part payment"
the opinion declared. Continuing it said
Whether the Common Council can now
make changes in these plans, and adver-
tise for bids upon the changed basis, can
not be determined at present. But it is
now determined that the accepted bid and
all proceedings upon 1t are void for the
reasons heretofore given, in the main, by
this court upon the demurrer In the Jones
case"
The opinion stated that the allegations
OF the complaint were to be taken for this
purpose to be true, finally ending by sus-
tanning the demurrer and giving plaintiff
ten days to amend.
The deposition of Mr.. Effey, as pub
ushed, admits many OF the allegations of
the complaint, but denies any COLLISION
between himself and CARAT & Co. He
ADMITS getting possession Of the warrant
through his agent, Mr.. Goodwin of San
Francisco, and of receiving a telegraphic
credit of $3.50 from the Seiignians of
New York. The consideration paid by
Paul B. Perkins Mr.. Effey states to be ST
and other considerations. When pressed
as to what the other considerations were.
Mr.. Effey said:
Il can say, but don't want to. refuse.
. point blank
In the meantime, as the contract has
been completed. accepted by the City and
paid for, people here are wondering what
it is all about
Memorial to Congress.
SANTA ROSA, CAL, Jan. 1S.-The Su-
narvicnrc nf COnnpoa