The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-10-15
Cheated Contractors
Out Of Work.
STOOD IN WITH THE GANG
APPEARED AS A WITNESS FOR
BOSS REA.
Both Sides Close Their Case in the
$25, 900 SANDER Suit.
Argument to Begin
Tuesday.

SAN JOSE, Oct 14-Both sides in che
Jarman-Rea $25. 900 SANDER suit rested
this afternoon, and argument before
the jury win commence Tuesday
molning. The bulk of the testimony
given to-day was in behalf of Jarman.
Jacob Lenzen, an architect, was put
on the stand this morning to rebut
the testimony of Jarman that the
plaintiff had received the painting Of
the Rhinehart flats in competition and
not for his vote in the Council on the
change of the fire limits. Witness said
he was supervising architect of the
Rhinehart flats. Mrs. de Wit and L. p.
Kraft, trustees of the Rhinehart es-
tate, had spoken TO him about the
painting of the buildings, and had told
him that Jarman was to be given the
painting. He said S. 2. Hatcher, agent
of the property, had told him the same
thing owing TO the terms of the will
OF Mrs. Rhinehart creatina he trust
she work had to be done 'ntract
and it was arranged that an was
to have the work. Abrams -.i.-Ats had
been left to the witness ana the work
was given to Jarman. L. 2. Craft, a
trustee, had also told him Jarman was
to have the work.
Under cross examination LenZen
told an entirely different story and
proved an excellent witness for Jar
man. He admitted that he had built
the City Hail, AgneWs Asylum, Hall of
Records and new High School, and had
had a hand in every big job given out
by the gang in the city and county for
the past fifteen years. Lenzen testl-
fed he had frequently defrauded con-
tractors who had figured on work he
was supervising by not giving it to
the lowest bidder. He had practiced
such faVoritism many times.
Lenzen said bids were received for
painting the Rhinehart flats from Cur
rier, Baird and Jarman, and Jarman's
was the lowest. The plaintiff was to
have the work anyhow, but it was to
appear that he was the lowest bidder
and have his own price afterWard.
Witness had arranged to do this. He
had before perpetated the same kind
of fraud upon contractors who fig
ured on work, and did not consider 1t
q fraud. He thought it perfectly legal.
Witness did not do this at all times,
but he liked to see his friends get the
work. He refused to tell how he ma
nipulated such things, but thought
such work perfectly honest tran
sactiOns He finally admitted Jarmans
bid for the work was the lowest and
plaintiff had performed the work &C
cording to specifications. Jarman had
done frst-class work and had earned
every dollar he had received. Plain
tiff was entitled to the work, and even
with some extra work he had done his
bill was lower than that OF the other
bidders. Jarman's work was satisfac-
tory and honestly done. Lenzen SAID
he had remodeled the Rea building
few months ago and secured the work
ut a inc Of Ross RRa
S. P. Hatcher, real estate and in
surance agent, said he was the agent
of the Rhinehart property and had car
ried the insurance on the buildings
burned. Some time after the fire Mrs.
Harper and Mrs. de Wit told witness
they had been before the ordinance
committee of the Council to get per
mission to rebuild the buildings of
wood They had been unsuccessful and
asked witness 20 try and secure modl-
f1cation of the fire limits. He had. seen
Boss Rea and asked him to use his in
fluence in the matter. L. 2. Kraft,
another trustee of the estate, had also
asked witness to take an interest in the
matter. He said he had reported to
Kraft in the presence of Mrs. de Wit
or Mrs Harper that Rea told him Jar
man would favor a change Of the fire
limits and it would pass II Jarman was
given the painting without competition
OIL the Dui1QlnSS ~ nc 6I6ClSQ I1S d1SO
told Kraft what Rea had told him.
On cross examination Hatcher said
the reason he went to Rea and asked
him to lend his aid and influence in
having the fire limits changed was be
cause Rea had worked in politics for
years. He knew Rea had good friends
in the Council and could interest them
in the matter He did not think Rea's
proposition that Jarman be given the
painting was just exactly right. 1t was
not proper, but witness would not say
whether it was dishonest or not.
Hatcher did not consider it a bride for
a Counciman's vote. The matter was
fair and honest as far as he was con-
cerned, and he had only Interested him
self in the matter out Of friendship for
the Rhinehart family.
Attorney Delmas recalled Mrs, Harry
Harper to contradict the testimony of
LenZen and Hatcher. Her testimony
was strong and convincing. Mrs. Har-
per testified she was a trustee of the
Rhinehart estate. She had never spoken
TO Hatcher about having the fire limits
changed so their flats could be rebuilt
of wood. He was not an agent for the
estate and was simply agent of
q company that carried the in
surance on the buildings. She
had been before a committee of
the Council and asked permission to
because a large proportion of the build
ings had been destroyed. Later the
Council changed the fire limits. The
trustees had never asked Hatcher to
see Rea about having the limits
changed, and she had never heard
Hatcher make such a statement to
Kraft. Never even knew Rea had been
considered. She was equally as posi-
tive in her denial of orders having been
given to LenZen to give Jarman the
painting. The painting had been let in
competition and Jarman was the lowest
bidder.
Mrs. de Wit. another trustee of the
Rhinehart estate, gave similar testi-
mony. She denied the statements made
by Hatcher and Lenzen that Jarman
was to be given the painting of the
building without competition for his
vote in the Council on the change of the
fire limits Hatcher had no authority
to go to Rea for his influence with
Councilmen and she had never heard
Hatcher tell Kraft he had fixed the
matter up.
Attorney Delmas then said that that
finished his case The defense also
made the same announcement.
The attorneys were then Instructed to