The times., 1899-04-23

afterward Mr. Haight received remarka-
Bile letter from Fryer, who was chairman
of the Building Commission. Mr.. Moss
read the letter. In 1t Fryer said that prob
ably at some future time he would give
Mr.. Haight an opportunity to find out who
he was Mr.. Haight took the letter as a
threat that Fryer, in his official capacity,
would put him to annoyance in his busi-
ness. In 1892, Mr.. Haight testified, he had
some business with Fryer in connection
with alterations to the Broadway Theatre.
In 1896 he got a bill from Fryer for 500
for professional services" in relation to
that 1892 transaction. He contested the
bill. was sued, and won his case. Mr..
Haight testified that it was at times very
difficult to get business matters through
the Board of Examiners by the ordinary
straightforward business methods.
Thomas L. Feitner. President of the Tax
Department, was next called TO the stand.
He said that he had been subponaed TO
bring before the committee the personal
tax records OF Richard Croker. He failed
to hnd any record of personal assessments
of Mr.. Croker's for the years 1896, 1897,
1888, and 1889. He said in answer TO Mr..
Moss question that it appeared that Mr..
Croker had not been assessed for personal
tax at all during those years. An affidavit
from Mr.. Croker, made in 1895, for the
purpose Of swearing off an assessment of
Feitner said that Mr.. Croker owned real
estate at that time, but that ii was in
numbered with mortgages TO the extent Of
/ s125, ,000.
Architect Fryer on the stand
Mr.. Fryer was then called and said he
was connected with the New York Build
| ing and Land Appraisement Company. He
I was also member of the board of build
inn mi had IN 10 bOa ard
for ten years. He was also a member OF
! the building code commission
! Mr.. Moss read from real estate publi-
1 cation Mr. Fryer's professional advertise
! ment Mr. Fryer advertised himself as a
consulting architect and engineer, and an
adviser on matters relating to building
laws The advertisement concluded.
Services good; charges high"
Mr.. Fryer said The services Of con-
sulting architect are TO help out archi
tects and to advise them how to get over
difficulties, such as having plans favorably
passed on by the building authorities"
Mr.. Moss brought out the fact that, as a
member of the Board of Building Exami-
ners, he might have to pass on pans which
he had received fee TO help along.
Mr.. Fryer said that his being a member
of the board helped him to get business as
a consulting architect and engineer. A
large part of Mr. Fryer's testimony was on
the subject of fire -proofing methods.
At the afternoon session Mr.. Fryer con-
tinued his testimony, and admitted that
he had received $3.50 from Peter Brennan
in connection with plans for building
at Cortlandt and Church Streets. The
! plans were at first rejected by the Board
OF Examiners. Brennan consulted Fryer
got his advice, paid the $3.50 and the
plans we're accepted. The plans had been
prepared by Constable Bros. Fryer said
that II the building had been erected ac-
| cording TO the first plans it would have
fallen down. The situation disclosed by
Mr.. Fryer's testimony in this regard was
that Mr.. Fryer, in his official capacity as a
member OF the Board OF Examiners, first
rejected the plans and then got $3.50 to fix
them so that they could be passed. He did
not remember at first whether or not he
had written an article in the Record and
Guide In 1894 advising that the owner of
building In process of erection make pres
ents to the building inspector OF the dis
trict, but afterward said he might have
| written it.
Building Inspector Brady was also exam
ined, especially as to the appointments that
\ have been made in his department.