Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-13
SUIT OVER CABBAGE PLANT
Cyrus Borgner Fileaa Bal Against Contrac'
tor ]. n. Wkrfeld.
Claims That thes Smith Furnace Was
Not PrOperly-oOpcrated-
the Balantes. Due.

The removal andsdisposal Of the garbage
of the District constituted, indirectly, the
basis Of suit-at-law instituted today in
the Supreme Court of the District of Co.
lumbia by Cyrus Borgner, to recover dam
ages IN the sum of $S,633.12 from Contrac-
tor Joshua N warfield.
In his long declaration, filed with the
clerk OF the court, Mr. Borgner explains
that Mr.. Warfeid, having been awarded
q contract for the collection and dis
posal Of garbage in the District for Pc
Rod of four years and eight months from
and after October 80, 1895, entered into an
agreement with him in respect to the use
Of the Smith-Sieman's regenerative gar
bage incinerating method or plant.
1t was decided. says Mr.. Borgner, that he
should furnish Mr. Warfield with one plant
with capacity of one hundred tons net
daily for $15,350. guaranteeing the plant
for the first year of it's operation to incin-
crate to the satisfaction of the Commits
SionerS OF the District, and at an average
cost of 30 cents per ton of substance
treated, not to exceed the capacity of the
furnace or furnaces used. 1t was stipu-
lated, SO the declaration sets forth, that II
at the cad of a test of ninety days the
plant should not be approved by the Com
misSioners, Mr.. Borgner would remove the
same without cost to Mr.. Warfield. and re-
pay to him whatever sums of money might
in the meanwhile have been paid.
Contract Recited.
Mr.. Borgner recites in detail his con-
tract with Mr.. Warfield, and goes on to say
that the plant was duly constructed in ac-
cordance with the agreement. February J.,
1897, and until July q, 1897, he continues,
the plant was operated by Mr.. WaTfield.
When delivered to the latter, so it is claim
n6 fhn N1oy,t hi Of tnn I'M n
in a perfectly sanitary manner 100 tons net
per diem of Carriages at an average cost Of
30 cents per ton.
Mr.. Borgner naxt charges that Mr.. War
field. contrary to the true intent and mean
Ing of the contract, did cot, during or at
the end of ninety days. the test period, re-
quest the Commissioners to approve the
plant or take any action whatsoever with
regard to it's approval or it's continued
maintenance or operation. Mr.. Warfieid
did not, at the end of the test period, call
on him to remove the plant, adds Mr.. Borg
rer, but retained it and continued to use
and operate it.
ChOked the Furnace.
Although he fully performed his part Of
the contract, states Mr.. Borgner, Mr. War
field, during the test period, consumed or
attempted to incinerate or consume at the
plant, more garbage than it's agreed ca
pacity. Furthermore, it Is charged, he
failed In other respects to operate the
plant with reasonable icare, by reason of
winch the furnace was greatly damaged
and Its efficiency was impaired to such
an extent that it could not be operated to
the best advantage nor consume in per-
fectly sanitary manner one hundred tons
of garbage per diem.
The plant was permitted to remain in an
uncleanly condition, 1t is alleged, and gar
page was allowed to remain in and about
1t for considerable time before consump-
t1on For these reasons, Mr.. Borgner
says the operation of the plant was for
bidden by the Commissioners July p last.
Mr.. Warfeld has paid to Mr.. Borgner,
according to the latter's statement, &c.
1858 on account of the contract price of
the plant, but has. failed and refused to
pay the balance, s&63312. Therefore, Mr..
Borgner brought the suit to recover the
balance claimed to be due.