Perth Amboy evening news. [volume] (Perth Amboy, N.J.) 1903-1959, 1905-09-06
DECIDE M|LLTOWN BRIDGE CASE
BEFORE THE END OF THIS WEEK.
Justice Fort Heard Arguments
on Motion to VaCate Writ
of CertiOrari.
PROBABLY DISMISS 1T.
The Arguments Advanced by tho
Attorneys on Both Sides
Alan StrOng's Speech.
Special to the Evening News.

Special to the Evening News.
NEW BRUNSWICK, Sept e.
| Justice Fort at end of the hear
ing on the motion to vacate the writ
of certiorari obtained by Charles A.
Bloomfield against the Board Of
Freeholders holding up the award
of the contract for the NLilltown
bridge to Dean, Schweirs, Sutton &
Company, announced yesterday af-
matter this week.
1t is generally believed that the
court will dismiss the writ and thus
permit the contract to be finished by
the company to whom the contract
was awarded. The prosecutor of the
writ, Mr.. Bloomfield. stated at the
end of the hearing that he believed
the court would take such action in
the matter.
81 thought the court would dis
miss the writ on the start and SO
stated" said Mr.. Bloomfield but +
thought the proceeding on the part
of the freeholders was so outrageous
that | was willing to pay 500 or
$50 to show it up
I Lawyer Strong's Argument.
Lawyer Alan H. Strong made the
final argument for the freeholders.
I He covered part of the ground con-
sidered by Former Judge j. G. Con-
over who appeared for the success
full contractors. To him Lawyer VIII
lard p VOORHEES, for Mr.. Bloomfield
made the reply. Lawyer Voorhees,
held that the action of tine freehold
ers was such as to warrant one in
4 inferring that there was fraud and
that the board had abused the right
! of discretion given them under the
law in disposing of contracts.
but we do not want the co1stx2 Ef;
given to the West Virginia Bridge
Company" he said and they were the
lowest bidders who protested against
the Dean company getting 1t, Fas
the plans are not what they should
be. But we do claim the board had
no right to give the contract out ar
bitrarily on the Dean plans without
inquiring into the cost, or submity
/ ting it to competitive bidding.
%'They say the bridge is SO dang3r-
Gus. 1 have searched the minutes
since February 8, 1904 and can /not
|, find that anything has been Spent
on this bridge. There is no danger
to the public from this bridge. lf
there is it has been so for the past
three-years and it is too lake now to
expect to use this BRIDGE while the
,or, ono ;e I,o;no h,.ilf af,,or tl,n.,s ~,
it is dangerous"
Cause of the Trouble.
"Why is there so much trouble
here over contracts9 Because of
awards just like this one. 1t is com
mon knowledge here that contracts
are given out in part and what show
does a contractor have ON the rest
of the job when part of 1t is already
given out? OF course the contractor
doing that work is in better shape
to finish the job"
Lawyer Alan H. Strong he'd that
8 the board had the right, If It ex'
5 ercised it's discretion fairly, to award
the contract to an Independent bid
b der as had been done here If they,
Z so chose and he quoted a decision
sustaining him on this point There
was not an atom of evidence, he
I said, that the board had anything
! else in mind than to give out IBIS
contract for the best of interests "
the county and this was apparent TO
the fair and impartial minded.
"The, whole question:" he said,
was as to whether, at the meeting
of July 70, they should have award
ed the contract to the Dean company
as they had or put it up to compet-
) tive bidding. To be chargeable- with
fraud this palpable abuse Of discre-
ton as it has been termed must be.
open and apparent and of such nat
ure that 1t shocks the ordinary per-
s son. Fraud cannot readily be INFER
Z red. There must be direct proof OF
= such proof of collateral facts that it
makes the inference irresistible It
( is not so here and yet my opponent
! goes through the evidence, gets
"A sentence or two here and another
there, all susceptible of proof, and
throws them in bunch at your hon
or with mods and winks as he talks