The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-03-20

The appeal Of ex-County Commits.
sioners S. w. Roberts, Giles Roberts
and John Demuth from the county au-
ditors' svrcharges Of $18,500 in connec-
tion with the remodelling Of the court
house in 1898, was called for trial yes
terday before Judge Savidge, of Nor
thumberland county. The case is being
tried in the superior court room, in the
finishing of which much of the al
legged unwarranted expenditure was
made.
II. NJ. Hannah and +. c. Newcomb
represent the auditors, Asa E. Kiefer.
p. w. Costello and F. l.. Ward. The
commissioners attorneys are Willard,
Warren & Knapp and O'Brien & Kelly,
Judge Knapp, Mr.. O'Malley and Mr..
Kelly appearing.
The jurymen selected to try. the case
are: William Smallcomb, miner, Jer-
myn: d. c. Phillips, miner, Blakely:
David d. Williams, miner, Jermyn;
Norman, Leach. farmer, South Abing-
ton; David l.. Williams, foreman, May
field; G. l.. Timlin, merchant, Taylor;
John Lunney, janitor. Scranton; M. d.
Lewis, merchant, Taylor; Emery Neal,
brakeman, Elmhurst; +. G. Trumbly,
clerk, Waverly; Eli Vail, engineer,
Moscow: William Williams, weighmas-
ter. Mayfeld.
The jury had been chosen and sworn
in when Judge Savidge arrived at noon
and at 1.3O everything was ready to
proceed with the trial.
While the commissioners are the par
ties who brought the matter into court
they are really the defendants. and
the trial, as it were, is being conducted
rear end to.
Mr.. Hannah made the opening ad-
dress and the auditors side also took
the first turn at presenting testimony.
5. w. Roberts was called to the stand
as on cross-eXamination and for three
hours was subjected to a searching in
quiry by both Mr.. Hannah and Mr..
Newcomb.
The first matter taken up was the
surcharge of $1,000 for the commission
paid Contractor Conrad Schroeder for
supervising work on the court house
roof. When asked to explain this Mr..
Roberts stated that both the Berlin
Iron company and Mr.. Schroeder were
working on the building at the same
time. Each had equal rights and the
architect had no power to say which
should wave the preference when their
operations conflicted. 1t was thought
best to have some one in authority to
superintend and to be primarily re-
sponsible tor both jobs and 1t was
agreed by all concerned that Mr..
Schroeder should take the supervision.
For this the commissioners allowed
Mr.. Schroeder $1,000. or the equivalent
of commission of per cent.
When asked to explain why it was
no competitive bids were asked for the
finishing of the Superior court room,
Mr.. Roberts went on to say that the
commissioners were in a hurry to have
the room finished. Hall, the man who
was given the work, was on the
ground, he was a reliable party and
the commissioners deemed it expedient
to accept his offer to do the work for
the actual cost of labor and material
and ten per cent. profit. Hall lost
money on his contract for finishing No.
l court room and would not take the
job under contract.
Mr.. Roberts admitted that both Con-
tractor Schroeder and Architect Lacey
were paid commissions for overseeing
the work done by Hall, but he ex-
planned that Mr.. Schroeder was paid
more particularly for the extra care
that he was called upon to TAX? in
altering the walls to receive the finish
ing work.
Newcomb was examining Mr.. Roberts
on the extra bill of the Hunt & Conne!l
company for gas fitting.