The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-03-24
Answer Filed In the Suit Of
the East Jersey Water
Company for Water
Supply.
INADEQUATE DELIVERY CAUSED LOSS
Expenses of Pumping at BellsyilIs
and High Service In
CURED by Breach of
Contract,

against it by the East Jersey Water
Company, for the temporary supply of
water from the Pequannock watershed,
was filed this morning by Mr.. Spencer
Weart, Corporation Attorney. 1t is not
very long document, but covers all the
points made in the declaration of the
company
The East Jersey Water Company's bill
comprised three amounts: S44, ,ss4 s6, with
interest from July II, 1896; $50, ,741-44, with
interest from October Is, 1896; s97, ,341- -43,
with interest from January 10. 1897. The
first amount of S44. .S64.96 was originally
$s6 6S64.96, but on account of the diminish-
ed supply during that period Mr.. Will
lam H. Corbin, counsel for the company.
deducted $4,000. The whole amount. sued
now is s2s1 1s47.Ss.
The first point in the city's answer Is
that the contract made with the East
Jersey Water Company was unlawful. be-
cause it violates an important provision
Of the city's charter, which is that when
any public work involving an expendi-
ture of more than $500 is required the
city must advertise for bids in the daily
newspapers for at least six days. The
contract with the East Jersey Water
Company was not so advertised, as the
charter expressly provides. hence its IL
legality.
The city, secondly, denies the allegation
in the company's declaration that it re-
fused to take the Pequannock supply and
asserts that they were never offered
what they agreed to take.
Because of this the city sets up what
lawyers know as a recoupment, and that
sets out that the East Jersey Water
Company is Indebted to the municipality
of Jersey City in large sum of money.
not less than $500 900, for the company's
failure to perform its contract. BY its
failure to do that. the city says, Jersey
City suffered large expense in maintains
ing its pumping station at Union Town
ship, Bergen county.
| The maintenance of Belleville pumping
| station would have been unnecessary had
the East Jersey Water Company deliver
| ed the water agreed to. At the station
alluded to Jersey City, because of the
company's failure to carry out its con-
| tract, was compelled to pump and deliver
| into it's reservoir, from which Jersey City
obtained a portion of its water supply.
That water SO pumped came from the
Passaic River and was vastly inferior in
! quality to the high priced water from the
Pequannock and the commingling of the
inferior water of the Passaic River with
the water of the Pequannock rendered
the supply from the latter river useless
| as saleable for Pequannock water.
By reason also, says the answer, of the
East Jersey Water Company failing to
supply the city with sufficient water Jer-
sey City has had large sums to pay for
coal, oil, repairs, salaries for men and
materials of various kinds during the
pumping OF water at Hiigh IN Service; @ aii an
Incurred had the East Jersey Company
fulfilled what it agreed to do.
Then RSer agbh Rad the to ey ng
spected since Jersey City was obliged to
pump water from it, and such policing
meant additional expense.
Again, because of the company's failure to
give the city sufficient water. Jersey City
has been unable. to increase its water
creased cost of the Pequannock water.
as 1t was impossible to make a rate when
ore part of the inhabitants of the city
were receiving Peauannock water and the
other part was receiving PaSSaic water
mixed with Pequannock.
The final point raised in the recoup-
ment is that Jersey City has not bene-
fitted in It's normal and annual growth of
aSSesSable valuation and population be-
cause the real estate improvement and
real estate activity have been retarded
by the inability of the East Jersey Water
Company to deliver Pequannock water
all 81 fne Pasgac Psy Tne s tnas
others the high priced and better Pequan-
mock caused a great deal of dissatisfac-
ton among the Inhabitants of the city
and to owners of real estate who had
difficulty in letting houses where inferior
water was supplied Jersey City's wa
state of things. conduct to its present
and future advantage its distribution
and sale of water to the consumers,
The papers all being in, the case will
be tried before Justice Lippfncott and
jury in the Hudson County Court in
April next. Ex-Judge John A. Blair and
Mr.. Spencer Weart will represent Jersey
City and Counselor William H. Corbin
and probably Mr.. Charles L. Corbin will
pany. Both sides propose to call a
large number, of witnesses; Expert testi-
the lawyers say the case will consume
many days.