The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-05-17
APPEAL NOT SUSTAINED
Stewart and Others Lose Their Case
Against Gillespie

The appeals of John Stewart and others
and F. Gillespie, a contractor, which have
been heard so often by the council, were
definitely settled yesterday after an hour
and q half Of argument, talk and discus
sion. The verdict was against Stewart and
for Gillespie, not that all Of the council
wished 1t 50, but the circumstances of the
matter were such, as they said. as to COM
| pei them to vote the way they did.
| Stewart appealed from the acts and de-
| Examinations of the superintendent of
| streets, in accepting the work of the i'm
! provement of Twenty-f1rst street from
| Central avenue to the George Dalton, Sr..
tract, and in issuing his assessment and
diagram therefor. Stripped of the usual
verbiage attendant upon such cases. the
| Stewart people wanted, or rather. claimed.
| that he should raise his warrant for the
salary of the inspector who examined the
work for the city from twenty days to
| thirty-six days, thus bringing the cost Of
| the work within the bond act limit, or more
| than 81 for each foot Of frontage.
AS the matter stood, the cost of foot
was from 3 to 8 cents less than 81 per foot
compelling them to pay the contractor cash
in full. Yet if the inspector of the work.
one McHugh, had been paid for thirty-six
days, which number of days Stewart claims
he put in, it would have raised the cost
within the bond act and the property own
ers affected would have had ten years IN
which to pay their portion of the total
cost.
About year ago the work was started,
the city engineer making his estimate of
the cost of the work then reporting that it
would come under the bond act. Gillespie
said that he knew when accepting the con-
tract that all but ten lots would come under
the provisions of the bond act, and then he
could not explain why he took the work in
the face of this knowledge. In the early
part of the proceedings of the case Mr..
Order moved that the appeal be sustained,
but that is as far as he ever got with his
intention, for there was no second.
Attorney Valentine, for Stewart, in ex-
planning his side said that it was case
that had fraud on the face of it. and fraud
with intent to defraud. He believed that
Contractor Gillespie had paid McHugh for
the sixteen days that the street superiu-
tendent had no record of, but that that was
not his fault, but that it remained, never
theless, that McHugh had worked those
sixteen days on the job, for which the
remarks were such as to cause him to say in
conclusion: IT do not charge Mr.. Drain
with collision or connivance with the con-
tractor in this matter
Mr.. Baker thought that the council had
no right to question the doings of the stree.
superintendent, and Mr. Toll said he would
like to defeat the purposes Of the contract
or, but the opinion of the city attorney was
l.; hot !, of<,,
no use in making further effort in this d.
rection.
Mr. Order wanted to know from the con-
tractor why he did not make these claims
regarding inspectors fees before. Gil
lespie replied that an inspector makes out
his own time signed by the contractor TO
assure the superintendent of streets that
there has been no overcharge. He said
McHugh had put in fourteen and three
quarter days actual time on the cement
work and had made other inspections later
that brought the time to exactly twenty
days. as charged. An inspector has never
been paid for inspecting gravel, to his
knowledge, he said, out of the city funds.
because the statutes did not provide for it.
and that he had therefore paid S1cHugh out
of his own pocket for doing that work for
sixteen days.
President Silver and others questioned
Gillespie at some length, but learned moth
ing material, for Of vital matters Gillespie
seemed not at all certain.
Mr.. Nickel moved that the matter be
postponed for further hearing and action
one week, and Mr.. Order urged that his
motion, that the appeal be sustained, be
heard Others thought that nothing could
\