Perth Amboy evening news., 1905-09-30
MORE BRIDGE TESTl- J
MONY AT HOBOKEN.


but the journal did not show. Mr..
Sandford said the bookkeeper would
have to be called to testify as to the
books as he was not a b~ookkeeper.
The only way they could tell what
amount he had paid Wynkoop &
Braley on the draw was by their get
ting together and having a settle
ment on all three jobs. A check for
$4,000 was traced to the books but
Mr.. Sanford could not tell what it
was given Wynkoop & Braley for
specifically. Special Master Van
Cleef suggested that it might be for
the campaign fund.
On examining into the notes given
Wynkoop & Braley, who merged in
to the New Jersey Bridge Co., Mr..
Sanford explained that some of the
checks paid were for the taking up
of these notes. The checks were
paid to the order of Wynkoop &
Braley, the New Jersey Bridge Co,
and J. F. Mccain, superintendent.
The notes were to the amount of
$47,500 and were endorced by G. w.
Dean of the firm of Dean, Schwiers
& Sutton, formerly with the New
Jersey Bridge Co., Mr.. Gaheen, of
Canton, and Mrs. Fountain, of the
firm of Rue & Fountain.
Bookkeeper Called.
George N. Plum, Jr., bookkeeper
for the firm of Sanford & Harris
could tell little about the books as to
the account of Wynkoop & Braley.
The books did not show the pay
ments on the draw and the witness
said Mr.. Sanford was the only man
who knew about that. This was an
exceptional account and Mr.. Sand
ford did not tell him all his business.
Mr.. Sanford also testified that a
wooden bridge was better than a
steel one, as he had known that a
wooden bridge had stood forty-eight
years, while a steel one had lasted
from seventeen to twenty years only.
He also said $4,000 was due the firm
on the Amboy bridge contract yet.
Engineer Mccain testified that
the weight of the centre pier was o.
5f3,300 less the amount allowed for
tloatage of 1885, 600 or a net weight
nf-1A75, 800.
He also said the bid of F. r. Long
Construction Company for the
bridge called for 1877 piles more than
that of Sanford & Harris, provided
longitudinal braces to every other
section, for the use of long leaf yell
low pine and steel rails on each side
at a cost of 5000 less than Sanford
& Harris, but he still claimed the
Sanford & Harris bridge a better
one.
Offer to Buy Bridge.
Mr.. Sanford also testified, on the
letter being introduced where he of
fered to buy the Amboy bridge and
make a toll bridge of it, that he
would complete the approach on the
aNrth Amboy side by using a trestle
a red from a Newark bridge he
uilding and would complete
,dge for use for $4,000. He
do it for that amount and use
timber. He would want two
a2n sths to make preparations and
have the bridge in use in a
81 thereafter.
expense account was also in
"a Dy Lawyers WedIl anu
Cor the contractors and free
) showing what had already
spent by the contractors on the
.Ese. In this account the contrac-
MY had added in $4,000 for the
use Of their machines in building the
bridge, $4,000 for the draw and
~$96,747.47 as the cost of the tim
Der making a total expenditure OF
$~149,747.47. This is more than the
contract price made with the county.
1t is claimed by Mr.. Bloomfield
that the allowance for the use of the
machinery is clear profit and that the
draw only cost $4,000. He is try
ing to find out who got hat other
$1,000 and thinks the information
as to the endorsement of the notes
in this connection, If further inquir-
ed into, might throw some light on
the subject of an interesting charac-
ter.
The hearing will be continued
here next Tuesday morning.