The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-06-16

But for the persistence of Attorney
/. II. Burns, yesterday. in the argu-
ments on the answer to the Barber AS
phalt company's rule for mandamus
on Controller Howell. the repairs Of
the asphalt streets would have been
delayed, with scarcely any doubt, for
at least a couple of months and prob
ably a year.
When the answer of Mr. Comegys
was presented, the court wanted 10 de-
fer the whole matter to argument court,
which meets on July 3, and the respond
ent was not aVerse.
Mr. Burns however, ,contendcd strenu-
ously against this, pointing out the urg-
ency of the case and the fact that, If
the matter is not finally decided during
the week of argument court. a decision
will likely be delayed until August, as
court adiourns July 8 for the midsum-
mcr vacation.
Judge Gunster thought the case could
be decided sooner by having the hear
ing at argument court, but finally de-
fcrred to Mr. Burns and fixed the hear
ing for tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock,
at which hour the arguments will be
heard in the injunction case brought
by Mr.. Comegys in the name of Will
lam Farrell and II. Campbell to re-
strain Controller Howell from certify
ing the repair contract.
THE CONTROLLERS REASONS.
The answer OF Mr.. Comegys for Con-
troller Howell is as follows:
% Prior to the beginning of his term
of Office as city controller, l.. J. Rob
inson held that position and while hold
ing it, was made Il party to certain
suit or action in the court OF common
pleas, sitting in equity, wherein one IL.
Morris was plaintift and Il. j. Robinson,
the city of Scranton, and the Barber
Asphalt Paving company were defend
ants. In that suit it was among other
things dCcreed by the court that said
T.. j. Robinson, as city controller, be
prohibited and restrained from certify
ing said contract" meaning the contract
between the city and the Barber COM
pany, dated December 10, 1885, and pro
Vidng for the repairing of the asphalt
paved streets of the city for term of
ten years for the reason that the con-
tract was illegal and void.
60 on or about June 6, 1899, and after
there had been change in the Citys eX-
ecutive department and complete re-
organization of the councils had taken
place. the contract in question was
brought to Controller Howell by a per-
son in no way connected with the city
department; to wit the attorney for the
Barber Asphalt Paving company.
go That Controller Howell has no as
surance that the alleged contract was
either prepared or executed by an official
of the city of Scranton having the right
power and authority to do so, the person
who was in the office when the contract
! was executed being not now in office, his
| term having expired ON April 3, 1890
CD That the alleged contract, while in
form and language different, it u.s. in eff
feet and substance. the same as the al
legged contract of December 19, 1895 which
the court declared illegal and void, and II
was drawn by an attorney for the Bac'
Der Asphalt company.
SOME OTHER REASONS.
90 That there was no appropriation OF
money for the purpose of the allegGt
contract when it was alleged to be exc
cutcd.
60 That the alleged contract fails tC
designate the item of appropriation ol
which it is founded.
ca That at no time has there been
sufficient appropriation to meet the re
Quirements Of this alleged contract
which calls for q sum largely in excess
of the amount supposed to have beet
appropriated for the purpose on June
1899.
tt) lIdI 40 DOHu 10 StCuIt the plbpt.
performance of the terms of the con
tract has been given by the Barber AS
phalt company. Ut has been said tn
bond is lost strayed or stolen).
1O) That $50 was due and payable
May !, 1899, while not one penny has beel
earned so far.
QD That the contract expires on Jan
uary q, 1899. and it is no longer a ten
year contract.
Mr.. Burns filed a demurrer to tn
answer, alleging that it was insult