The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1904-09-07
THE STATE HOUSE SUIT.
M;lburn and UnkefaT Charged With
Conspiracy to Defraad.
Suit fer s2o0,ooo Fiise by Legislative
conimittee-The Complaint.

the legislative committee appointed TO
prosecute the alleged state house
frauds, fled suit against Z. P. Mil
burn, E. j. McIlvain, J. G. Unkefer.
S. B. Geucher, and J. @. Johnston
for, $3.50, 600. The grounds OF COM
plant are:
Failure to perform the contract is
charged In the following particulars:
That the work done aud the material
furnished was not equal Ia any respect
TO work done and material furnished
on the previously completed portion
SoEs the main building, marring the
effect. Of the fine work upon the main
building
That the contractors removed the
sue steel ceiling Of the rotunda, and
carried away the material, substitute
ing thereforS a ceiling, of plain materi
al costing not over 500.
That the two granite columns in the
inner part Of the front portico were
net placed as required by contract.
These columns, it is alleged, would
have counteracted 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 on
the capitals of the. old column; "a
coarse, unsightly and unfit leaf work.
was substituted.
That the columns in the rsar portico
should have corresponded with the
columns in the fornt portico. This
was not done, no Intel stones we're
placed there and sheet iron boxes to
represent granite were substituted.
defective glass flooring and cheap,
shoddy, stamped iron ceiling was
used in the porticos.
That the roof is of tar and gravel
imperfect in quality, it is alleged,
and with the gravel of improper size.
The roof is said to leak badly, food
ing the main lobby. There are no
ventilators to carryNoH the air between
the ceiling and the roof.
That the dome is given q lot of
space III the instrument. Ii is said to
have. been constructed in a crude and
unworkmanlike manner, full Of crimps
and kinks. The inner dome is not Sc
curely supported. according to this
complaint. and there are other alleged
deficiencies.
After numerous other specifications
in the complaint, all of secondary i'm
portance, it 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 and frescoing was ruined.
The plaintiff believes that Mr..
Milburn and The firm of contractors
collusively and fraudulently agreed
together that the work to be done un-
der the aforesaid contract should be
insuffciently and Improperly done,''
andN that said Frank P. Milburn-
we'll knowing the same to be defective.
improper and insuf6cient-falsely and
fradnlently certified in writing that
g 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 aud 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 appro-
priation and the making CT the con-
tract The complaint then states:
Plaintiff is informed and believes
that the said Frank P. Milburn in
tending and purposing to cheat and
defraud the said State of South Caro-
lima SO prepared bis specifications and
plans in the matter as to leave the
same open, general and vague and am
biguous in many respects so as to
enable bin, by ccllusion and confed-
eracy with.any contractor, to cheat and
defrand the state by performing the
same, either we'll or II, as the said
Frank 2. Milburn might decide. -
1t is charged further that the archi-
tect fixed the plans SO that he "migbt
require the contractor to perform the
same at great expnse or be relieved
therefrom and also that he might be
able Hereunder 90 permit to he per-
formed aud provided work and materi-
al wholly insufficient and defective
and improper.
That the contract vas prepared by
Milhurn and he WAS the sole Judge of
the due performance of the work is
also charged The plaintiffs is inform
ed and believes and so alleges aud
charges that Miplurn and the con-
tracing firm. upon the acceptance Of
the bid made by McIlvain & Unkefer
Co. and the execution of said contract.
then and there entered into an agree
; ment to cheat and defraud the state of
! South Carolina. whereby the said de-
PENDANTS should not perform the work
according to the true intent and
, meaning of the contract and it is
also charged that Milburn would
protect them and declare the work
properly done.
The complaint charges further that
the firm, latter said coltusion and
fraudulent agreement, carried cut
the work Improperly and furnished
, defective material, it being we'll un-
derstood that the plans and specifca-
tions had been drawn and would be so
interpreted by the said F. P. Milburn
so as to permit the same to be done,''
and that thereby they procured from
the plaintiff the sum of s15s, 306 for
the payment of work done and materi-
, al furnihsed wholly defective, iu-