The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-11-14

In the matter Of the surcharging Of
the county commissioners with money
expended in the rebuilding of the court
house, court made an order yesterday
directing that an issue be made
with the county Of Lackawanna as
plaintiff and county commissioners
Giles Roberts, s. w. Roberts and John
Demuth as defendants.
The report OF the county auditors Is
to stand for the plaintiffs statement
and the defendants are directed to
plead the general issue and file speci-
hcations Of error particularly within
thirty days. 1t is also ordered that the
the case be placed at the head Of the
first weeks list OF the January term,
1900.
Ex-Judge Knapp. for County Com
missioners Giles Roberts, S. w. Rob-
erts and John Demuth yesterday filed
the specifications of error to the aud
itors' report for the year ending Dec.
81, 1897, in which the commissioners
were surcharged with over $4,000.
Each of the individual surcharges
to the number OF 135 are taken ex-
ception to individually and an explain
alton as to how and why the sum sur
charged was expended is appended in
each case.
In a large number OF cases where
| surcharges were made the explanation
! is made that the same was a necess Try
/ ard proper expenditure in the repairs
/ of the county court house, The ex-
| ceptions taken to a number of the
larger surcharges are given below.
ABOUT GAS FITTING.
| Regarding the surcharge of $S$SS7
made for gas fittings furnished by
| Hunt & Conncll, the explana tion is Of
| fered that this did not appear in the
| specifications because the latter were
for plumbing only.
The surcharge of s574oG made by the
auditors as difference in costs of
/ twenty-siX closets as per specifications
and of closets actually furnished at
s22.0S EACH" is taken exception to. The
! commissioners say that the closets put
in the building were superior and high
| er priced than the closets specified
and that the change was made because
the closets were better and because
they could be obtained in less time
| than the others.
The extra expenditure of $420 made
on account OF changes in the speciflca-
tions for the ceilings of several OF the
rooms and surcharged by the auditors
is explained by stating that these
changes We're made because thought
necessary by the commissioners and
| the architect.
The expenditure Of $3.50. which was
surcharged for tuck pointing Of build
ing az per proposal of r. S. Williams
$2,250." is explained at some length.
The commissioners say that while the
specifications called for tuck pointing
the entire building, that 1t was deemed
unnecessary to do this work on all the
building and only on certain points.
BIDDERS INSTRUCTED.
They state that all bidders were in
structed to this effect before bidding
was done and that all bids were made
on this basis. The commissioners state
that the contractor did all the tuck
, pointing which under his contract he
could be called upon to do and that the
surcharge is accordingly improper
In regard to the expenditure of ST.
900 surcharged for experimenting the
erection of the steel roof the commits
sioners say that it was perfectly prop
or and was made to procure efficient
and scientific inspection of the roof.
The auditors surcharged the cont
mssioners s7,333.lS on the following
account:
Bill Of James T. Hall & Co ......Sl1, ,S35 IS
Expert Jones estiugt ted cost .... 4,J00 %
Surchargc .................,.......S 1888 IS
The commissioners say that the ems
tire sum of sll .333.1S was paid to
James T. Hall e Co.. for fitting up
the superior court room, halls and
other parts Of the building, that the
work was faithfully done and the
price reasonable and that therefore the
surcharge is improper and illegal.
The auditors srrchal ged the commits
sioners with $3.50 on the following bill:
James T. Hall & Co .....,,.........SL2jO 90
Expert Jones estimated cost ...... 3, 400 %
| ----
Surcnarge Observation-Disclosures, 80 w
The commissioners say that the con-
tract for this work was let to this firm
because their bid was the lowest sent
in: that the work was properly done
and that the entire sum of $3.50 was
paid out accordingly.
IRON ROOF BEAMS.
The surcharge Of $500 made for put
ting in iron roof beams is declared i'm
proper because the commissioners say
that the same was not included in the
new contract with the Berlin Iron
Bridge company and was accordingly
q proper expenditure.
A surcharge Of Sill made for closets
not put in and OF s10S for putting them
in are declared improper. Regarding
this the commissioners say that the
closets were returned to the contract.
ors and credit allowed and that credit
was also allowed for the work of put
ting them in.