The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1904-09-07

Ile WQOl6 OIL Tue co0GIdCG pI.CS Wlleu
"the contractors claimed to have per-
formed the work" required by the
contract.
GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT.
Failure to perform the contract is
charged in the following particulars:
That the work done and the mate.
rial furnished was not equal in any re-
spect to work done and and material
furnished on the previously completed
portion Of the main building, marring
the eff ct Ct the fac work upon tie
main building.
That the contractors removed the
fine steel ceiling of the rotunda, and
carried away the material, substitute
ing therefor ceiling of plain material
costing not over $500.
That the two granite columns in
the inner part of the front portico
were not placed as required by con-
tract. These columns, it is alleged,
would have counteracted a tendency
of the portico to pull away from the
main building.
That in lieu OF carving leaf work on
the columns equal to the leaf work Oh
the capitals Of the old columns, "a
coarse, unsightly and unfit leaf work"
was substituted.
That the columns iE the rear por-
tico should have corresponded with
the columns in the front portico. This
was not done, no Intel stones were
placed there and sheet iron boxes to
represent granite were substituted.
Defective glass flooring and cheap,
shoddy, stamped iron ceiling" was
used the porticos.
That the roof is Of tar and gravel
imperfect in quality, it Is alleged, and
with the gravel of improper sizes.
The roof is said to leak badly, flood
ing the main lobby. There are no
ventilators to carry of the air be-
tween the ceiling and the roof.
That the dome is given a lot Of
space in the instrument. 1t is said to
have been constructed in a crude and
unworkmanlike manner, full Of crimps
and kinks. The inner dome is not
securely supported, according to this
mplaint, and there are other alleged
deficiencies.
After numerous other specifications
in the com plaint, all Of secondary i'm
portance, 1t is alleged that no protec-
tion was afforded for the interior Of
the building while the roof was being
removed and in consequence all OF the
galleries were flooded and the painting
ard feoTscoing was ruined.
CHARGES CONSPIRACY.
The plaintiff believes that MIR. Mil
burn and the firm OF contractors
'collusively and fraudulently agreed
together that the work to be done
under the aforesaid contract should
be insut1ciently and improperly done, :"
and that said Frank P. Miluburn-
well knowing the same to be defec-
tive, improper and insuf1cient--falsely
and fraudulent!y certified in writing
that the payments for the same had
become due" And on this certificate
of Architect Milburn the said contract
sum was procured to be paid to the
contracting firm and the plaintiff
claims to have been. damaged to the
extent of 100000.
The second cause Of action reviews
in formal way the matter Of the ap-
preparation and the making of the
contract. The complaint then states:
Plaintiff is informed and believes
that the said Frank P. Milburn in
tending and purposing to cheat and
def1aud the said State Of South
Carolina SO prepared his specifca-
tions and plans In the matter as
to leave the same open, general
and vague and ambiguous in many
respects so as to enable him by collu-
sion and confederacy with any contrac-
tor to cheat and defraud the State by
performing the same either well or i'll
as the said Frank P. Milburn might
decide" 1t is charged further that the
architect fixed the plans so that be
might require the contractor to per-
form the same at great expense or be
relieved therefrom and also that be
might be able Hereunder to permit to
be performed and provided work and
material wholly, insufficient and de-
fective and improper
That the contract was prepared by
Milburn and he was the sole judge Of
the due performance Of the work is
also charged. The plaintiff is inform
ed and believes and so alleges and
charges that Milburn and the con-
tracing firm upon the acceptance Of
the bid made by the McIlvain u I'm
kefer Co. and the execution OF said
contract then and there entered into
an agreement to cheat and defraud
the State Of South Carolina whereby
the said defendants should not per-
form the work according to the true
intent and meaning Of the contract"
and IL is also charged that Milburn
would protect them and declare the
work properly done.
The complaint charges further tina