Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-03-14
Proceedings in Suit Against Con-
tractors for Street Sweeping.
ANSWER OF TEE DEFENDANTS FILED
The Charges of Non-Performance
of Contract Denied.
COUNSEL ADDRESS THECOURT

|
| Justice Barnard, in Equity Court No. .. in
| connection with the proceedings for injunc
| ton and the appointment of receiver in
| stituted Monday by the Fidelity and De-
| posit Company of Maryland against Albert
| Daggett and Michael a. Dugan, who are
| the contractors for cleaning the streets of
| this city. The action. it will be remem
| bered. is based on the alleged grounds of
| non-performance of contract for sweeping
| the streets, and the defendants alleged
| failure to pay for materials and labor sup
| piled in that work, whereby, ii is stated,
| liability is sought to be imposed upon the
| complainant company, which is surety on
| the contractors bond.
| The reading of the bill of complaint and
| the answer thereto consumed an hour.
| Counsel then addressed the court. Attor-
neys ]. J. Hemphill and Arthur Peter APP
| pear for the complainant. while Attorneys
Jere Wilson and A. A. Hoehling jr., repre-
| sent the defendants.
| The hearing was in progress when this re-
port closed.
| Answer of the Defendants.
| The answer of the defendants. Albert
Daggett and Michael A. Dugan, to the COM
paint of the Fidelity and Deposit Company
| of Maryland was filed this afternoon by
| Attorneys j. VI. Wilson and A. a. Hoehling
| JI., their solicitors. After admitting the ex-
| istence of the street sweeping contract and
| that the complainant became surety upon
| their bond they deny that they have failed
| at any time since the commencement of the
| work under their contract to perform the
| same in accordance with its specifica lions.
In reference to the charges that they
| failed to pay their laborers, the defendants
| declare that there were only two occasions
| on which the:e was any delay in raVing off
| the men-July p and November II, 1899
| In the frst case the voucher due and pay
| able july IL for work done by the defen-
| dants from July to July Is was temporar-
| lily withheld by the District. and thereby
| there was a delay in paying off the men.
| This matter, they declare was satisfactorily
| adjusted at once, and the work was re-
| sEmed by the employees after an absence of
| one day The other case was due. they
| state, to misunderstanding on the part of
| a portion OF their employees. owing to the
| fact that the defendants did not receive the
! money due from the District on November
| IL, and it was thereupon claimed by Ger
| tain employees that their pay should include
| the day or days Intervening between the
| 18th and the actual date of paylrcnt by the
| district. Only portion Of the men We're
| @hsent one day, and they resumed work
| Upon the matter being explained to them.
| Matter satisfactorily Settled.
! The defendants admit that in July, 1899,
| they were cited by the District to show
l
pended and others employed to do the
| work. the allegation being that the work
| was not being performed according to
| specifications. The defendants claim that
| all matters of difference were adjusted and
| settled whereby the incident was closed
and so far as they are advised, no charge
| has been made by the District since that
time, or by any one acting in its behalf
respecting the manner of performance by
the defendants of work required under the
| street sweeping contract. They further
deny that they have failed to thoroughly
clean the streets in the last two weeks or
| have failed to properly provide sweepcrs
| with bags or bag carriers, or that the sup
erintendent Of streets has warned them
| that they We're violating their contract in
| that respect. On the contrary, they say
| that in doing the work large number of
bags are used which, from time to time
| wear out, and have TO be replaced by
| others; that recently, to replace worn-out
| bags. they bought and paid for 200, but
| there was delay in one day OF their de-
| livery. and that during that time the super
| intendent of street sweepers mentioned the
| matter to the defendants superintendent
| and upon having it explained to him was
| entirely satisfied.
Admit Ipdebtedness.
Defendants admit being indebted to the
Austen and Western Company and the Ma
| tionai Broom and Brush Company for ma
|
upon credit. and that while payments have
| not been made they have expected and
| still expect, to make satisfactory adjust
| ment and payment of the amounts so due
l Continuing in this connection the answer
| says the defendants deny that either of
| the said creditors has made any threats to
| the defendants to enter suit for the collac-
| ton of said amounts, but they are advised
| that complainant has denied to each of said
| creditors any liability under the bond afore-
| said for either of the amounts; but that
| while denying such liability, complainant
| as defendants are advised, immediately
prior to the filing of this bill, requested the
| attorney for the creditors named in the par
| agraph. to Immediately enter suits against
it under the said bond, to recover the
| amount of their respective claims. with the
\ further statement made by complainant in
that connection that it wished to prevent
| the payment of moneys by the District due
| on the 18th of the present MONTH"
| Defendants declare this was attempted
for the purpose of bringing about a default
on their part to meet their pay roll and
other current expenses under their con-
tract.
Denial of Allegations.
| The allegations of the compiainants bill
that the defendants have numerous judg-
ments pending against them; that they or
either of them is insolvent; that their
horses, carts and other articles necessary
to performing their contract are in danger
| gorically and at length, well as the
charge that irreconcilable differences exist
| between the defendants, are denied. The
respondent Dugan also denies the allega-
| ton that he stated his intention to apply
for receiver to take charge of the con-
tract. The defendants deny any intention
| to appropriate the $500 due March Is to
| their own use as alleged.
The defendants further declare that they
| will suffer a loss of several thousand dol
lars on the contract by reason of the fact
that they became Indebted to one Herbert
| P PilIsbury, and not Edwin Fl. Pillsbury
| as averred in complainants bills, in the
| sum of 81 500 for feed furnished to horses
| and being unable to pay him thu amount
| had agreed with him to give him bill of
sale for the property used by them in the
| work on their contract, and would renew
the same every twenty days thereafter un-
| til the completion of the contract, he mean
| time continuing to furnish all feed neces-
sary This bill of sale was duly executa ed
| on March 10. states the answer, and duly
| delivered to Pfllsbury, but by agreement
| was not placed on record.
J The usual demurrers then follow and the
customary prayer that the recent restrain
! ing order be vacated and the cause dis
| missed