Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1902-06-19

Under the instruction of the Superior /
Court verdict for 50, 73l.07 was re- !
turned by jury Thursday in favor of 6
tho plaintiff in the case Of the Edge
Moor Bridge Works VS. Patrick Fahey.
Tho amount was made up Us follows:
Contract price for the superstructure
Of Seventh street bridge, 50, $50; less
Gig for lessening in weight Of particu-
lars by decrease in width Of bridge;
for extras. $3.50. 81 for interest from
December 10TH 1901, s276.76. Mr..
Fahey admitted the bill and said he
had not paid it because the Levy Court
had not paid him. William S. Hilles
represented the bridgeworks and
Charles W. Smith, Mr.. Fahey.
The first witness was A. NJ. Morrison,
manager of the Edge Moor Bridge
Works, who testified to the contract
between the company and Patrick
Fahey for the bridge, to cost 81, $50, to
be delivered March LIST, 1901. The con
tract was dated October 22d, 1900, and
was witnessed by John I. Dickey The
building was completed about Novem
Der, 1901. Numerous letters from Mr.
Fahey relative to the bridge were
offered in evidence. In one letter Mr.. |
Fahey says the plans were prepared by |
Che Delaware Construction Co., and |
he asks the Edge Moor people to make
whatever alterations they deem neces- |
sary to make good bridge: in another,
he speaks of the reduction in width |
from 30 to "a feet. Under date of
December 31st. he asks the company
to adjust the bridge preparatory to in
Bpection.
Mr.. Morrison said that extra work,
not in the contract, was done. Copies
Of numerous letters sent to Mr. Fahey
were, nut in evidence. One dated
November Goth, 1901, asks for the pay
ment of the contract price Of 80, $50
On December 18th MIR. Morrison in
forms Mr.. Fahey that an engineer has
ascertained that the centre pier has
settled one inch and that alterations
will have to be made to make the draw
work properly. In response to that
letter, the company was instructed to
fix the matter.
The company had prepared to build
a 30-foot bridge but change the width
to "a feet on hearing from Mr.. Fahey
as to the change in the width. Some
saving was made in weight of material.
Interest is claimed from December
10th, 1901.
On ross-examination, Mr. Morrison
said the bridge was stronger by being
narrower than the original plan called
for.
Assistant Treasurer William G. Smith
of the American Bridge Co testified
that the detailed bill for the extra
work on the bridge was made up from
the reports of the men in the field,
showing total of s330.3l.
Engineer Eugene Mowlds testified
that the original plan was sent to the
New York o.Ice, which made some
slight changes to strengthen the bridge.
Otherwise the original was followed,
excepting as to the reduction of the
width. The shop plans were all signed
by Mr.. Fahey. About 8. 600 pounds Of
material were saved by the decrease in
size, which at Ia cents pound would
be S126. Two lines of stringers were
left out. Some extra work was done
in leyeling up the bridge. The leveline
showed settlement of the centre pier or
one side. That made it necessary t.
change the track on the bridge draw
On cross examination he said tht
settling of pier for one inch woulc
not be a serious matter, as it could b.
lacked up.
John 0. Turner, who superintendeC
the work in the shop, said the bridg
was put together by the company afte
it had been unloaded at the bridg
site.
The plaintiff rested.
For the defence, Mr.. Fahey took tn
stand. Examined by Mr.. Smith.
You are the defendant in this suit
/ believer
eyes sir. ~
e'You have heard the testimony
most of the testimony as to the wor
done on this bridge, and the calcul;
tions as to the amount of the work, IL
interest and so forth, | believer
Yes, sir. =
rs that amount 70, 731.07) to IL
best of your knowledge and belief, IL
correct amount?'
Eyes, sir?''
Ibid you owe that amount to Il
Edge Moor Bridge Works?"
9 [ believe So y
You have not paid that"
mo, SIR
why have you not paid it?''
Because the Levy Court refused
accept the work and have not paid me
"You have not received your &C
tract price from the Levy Court?"
mo, sir: have not. :"
By Mr.. Hilles: 1--WE would be We
glad to get it when you get it. -
Mr.. Fahey: II would be very 81
to see you get it. =
rosy The defence rested.
Judge Pennevill asked Mr.. Smith
the defendant admitted owing
amount, and he replied that he d
Mr.. Hilles asked the court to instr
the jury to return a verdict
SO, 73l. W, which 1t did, and the verd
was duly returned
1t remains to be seen whether
statement of the defence will have
effect on the Levy Court, which
not yet accepted the bridge although
has paid SIT, 600 out of the S25, 600 c
tract price.
Judgment was entered for costs
favor of the defendants in the follow
cases: Alfred ID. Warner VS.. Pres
Lea, garnshee of Pierce & Beeson !;
John Bail Pierce, garnishee of Pie
& Beeson; vs. Frank Linton, garnis
of Pierce & Beeson; VS.. Addie L.
Taggart, garnishee of Pierce AZ Bee
and Charles Warner Go. VS.. Pres
Lea, garnishee; John Bail Pie
garnishee and Addie l.. B. Tagg
garnishee OF Pierce d Beeson.
Youth Dies suddenly.
Edward Knox, the 15-years-old
of William Knox, who conducts
Samuel Conway place near Coo
Bridge, died suddenly yesterday W
He had been working and