Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-05-25
THE HIGH SCHOOL LITIGATION.
Real Meaning of tho Suit Against tn
beard of Education.


Real Meaning of tho Suit Against the
Hoard of Education.
Many people have q mistaken i'm
preston concerning tho litigation be-
tween Building Inspector John j.. Cas-
sidy and the board of Education, being
Of the opinion that tho building in
spector brought suit to compel the
board to pay S17 more for a permit for
the erection OF the new high school
than the amount offered by the con
tractor, the A. S. Reed d Bro. Co. As
matter of fact no amount of money
is involved in the issue. The object of
the suit is tohave the court determine
whether, according I'd the building
regulations of the city, 1t is necessary
to take out permit for school build
ing, the ordinance being rather vague
as to whether failure to comply with
its provisions renders a person or per-
sons erecting school building liable
to fine. htt
The point which has been raised is
the outcome Of dispute between the
building inspector and the contractor
over the amount which should be paid
for the permit. the building inspector
contending that the fee should be based
on the contract price of the building
and the contractor holding that he
should be required to pay only ON the
| cost of the building; that is, the con-
tract price less the profit. A fee based
on the actual cost OF the building was
| rendered the building inspector, but
that official declined to accept it on the
| ground set forth above. Accordingly,
| the Reed company referred the matter
to its attorney, Tilghman Johnston,
and Inspector Cassidy conferred with
City Solicitor Henry G. Conrad, an
opinion concerning the disputed point
being requested.
| Mr.. Comrades written reply to the
building inspector did not definitely
settle the question which had been
raised, but 1t brought out the point
which led up to the litigation which is
now pending.
After waiting several days for the
contractor to pay the fee and there
being no indication that II would bt
paid voluntarily, Mr.. Cassidy notified
the Board of Education, Us owner o
the building, which was then wei
under way, that a permit must be taker
out within "a hours and that failure t.
do so would result in legal steps beini
taken to compel compliance with thu
ORDER
The matter was referred to the schoo
boards committee on new buildings
and after the members had held a con
ference it was decided to allow tn
matter to go to the courts to settle tn
point as to whether it was necessary t
pay fee for permit for the erection
of school building.
. Accordingly, at the instance of tn
building inspector, City Solicitor Con
4 rad applied to the Court of CHANGER
for rule on the Board Nof Educatio
v and the A. s. Reed & Bro. Co.,
7 show cause why they should not dis
continue the erection of the buildin
Q until they had obtained a permit, tn
. defendants being represented by Thigh
i man Johnston. June LIST was fixed q
the time for argument. In the NEAR
I time the erection of tho building cor
g tinues.
g Several contractors who have give
VI the matter some consideration, as we
g as city officials who are directly il
q terested in the matter of municip;
finances, believe that II judicial ruin
s on the point is desirable, to the en-
l. that similar disputes may be avoide
in the future. They deem it prop'
n that the public should know Just VIII;
N the purport of the ordinance is.
% The ordinance provides that sit sha
N be the duty of every person or person
>. builder or contractor, who is desirol
!" of erecting, constructing, repairing
q altering any house or building in tn
~ city, to make application at the Off
r Of the building inspector for a perm
~ for that purpose: and he or they sh5
s. be required to furnish written stat
ment of the location, dimensions a,
y; manner of construction of the propos
u building or edifice, together with Il
SO number of stories, the material to
used in such building. the purpose +
which it is designed to be used al
the time proposed to commence &
he erection thereof.
Concerning violations it says: G
st any owner, agent, builder or contract
All shall commence and proceed to ere
AT any building for store, dwelling, man
nj featuring or mechanical purposes,
81 shall erect any stable or storehouse 4
III storing grain or any other oommoditit
adj or shall commence the repair or alter
tion of any building, without givi
10. previous notice and taking out n perm
as from the Office of the building
ne spector for the same, he or they sh
- forfeit and pay for every such offence
ial fine of fifty dollars
,se Inc amount TO De nalu Tor perm
Mt is regulated by the following clau:
nle 1.-THE owner or contractor of new bui
m. ings erected, or old buildings torn o,
al repaired and remodeled within the c
shall pay the following fees for the ,
of the city: For each new building
r old building torn out, repaired or
H. modelled. where the cost of such u
81 building or tearing out or remodel
". of such old building amounts to t
3 ace hundred dollars or less, q fee of {
W. dollar: If the cost is over five humid
e1a dollars and not over one thouss
ers dollars. a fee of two dollars, and I
hy, dollar for each additional thousand
IAN q fractional part provided, that no
Cne shall be charged for any additions,
lno pairs or remodeling * " of !;
my old buildings whore tho cost of
pee same sahll not exceed the sum of Fl
an dollars.'
Three Men Hurt.
Yesterday week shortly after noon tn