Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1900-03-31
FALSIFIED
Were the Records.
Clerk IsbeII's Evidence
an Eye Opener.
Minutes Changed Without
His knowledge.
Fraud and ColIusion Openly
Charged.
Contractors Were Alter Large Slice Of
Peoples Money.

VOPsNV pUVuVys
The case wherein Attorney a. ].
Rowley, upon behalf of the citizens
Of Akron, seeks to enjoin the City
Commissioners from carrying out the
contracts entered into, with p. T. Nc
Court and James Wildes & Son for the
paving of East Market ST. was finished
at noon Saturday.
The case began at 1 o'clock Friday
afternoon. An abundance of testi-
mony was submitted, and both sides
Of the case put up bitter fight. The
result will not be known for a few
days, as Judge Nye has taken the
matter under advlsement. He will
decide the case not later than Inurs-
day. The injunction will remain In
force until that time.
1t has been shown that the records
Of the City Commissioners have been
tampered with, and that entries were
made thereon, other than those made
by Clerk Isbell.
According to the testimony of Mr..
AIcGowan, whose bid was the lowest
submitted, but which was rejected by
the Commissioners, there would have
been q good profit for him. had he Sc
cured the contract. That the success
full contractors We're after big slice
of the peoples money is self-evident,
as their bids were about $4,000 more
than Mr.. McGowan's.
The first witness placed on the stand
Saturday morning, was
CITY ENGINEER JOHN w. PAYNE
who was recalled by the prosecution
He submitted In evidence his estI'
mates on both portions Of EAST Market
st., together with an abstract of the
bids. The cross examination dwell
upon the ingredients entering into the
manufacture of block asphalt. The
witness said limestone and stone formed
the basis of the paving block ant
thought the kind Of stone would eff
feet the quality of the block.
CHARLES H. ISBELL
Was anxious to leave the court room
and he was put upon the stand for th
defense. The ordinance relating to tn
Northern Ohio Traction company wa
offered In evidence.
The next witness called by the pros
ecution was
FRED WALDECK,
Who, until Friday evening, has bee
out OF the city. The witness is co
lcctor and salesman foi the firm Q
Peterson s. Wight, and his testimon
had reference to the reports that +. 4
McCourt had endcavored to inhuenc
l Mr.. Wright through the witness,
refuse to 60 on the bond of Howar
, Herring.
! Mr.. Rowley asked ION the morl
ing Of March 10, did p. T. McCou
come to you with the request that yc
see Wright, and have him withdra
from the bond OF Mr. Herring?"
: Witness: "Yes, SIR"
"Did he afterward call you up
-. telephone"
"No, sir. He called Mr.. Wright
Tho witness afterwards saw Nj
McCourt, and talked with him. II
=. asked IL | had beon telling it. around
said Mr.. Waldeck. II told him III
not" Relative to testifying, he wal
cd to know what would say OH I
stand. said would tell the trut
No He said 1t was not, right for me
tell the truth"
Mr.. Doyle cross examined the W
ness and 1t was admitted that n
Court and witnesses had been joki
,,o about Wright getting stuck ON
- bond.
After calling w. II. Wright to
-. stand, who corroborated VALDEZ
,r, testimony, the plaintiff rested til
:. case.
- THE DEFENSE
.,., First called William Roche, He "
"a. shown the bic OF J. j. MCGOWAN, "
,,s ness denieo that 1t bore his signat'
-. and said he had not authorized any {
to eign his name.
MICHAEL DUNN,
Whose name appears upon Mr.
Gowan's bond, also denied that 1t Y
his signature.
A. T. PAIGE
mo. Testified that he was present at
Joint meeting of the Commission