Perth Amboy evening news., 1905-09-09
Original Contract to This Firm
Was for Only S557 for Bulk
head But They Were Paid
S2,7A Before They Were
Through Some Of the Details.
The REST FOR EXTRAS
AND SOME OTHER BILLS
Special to the Evening News:

Special to the Evening News:
NEW BRUNSWICK, Sept. g.
The Board of Freeholders will now
have their inning in the Perth Am
boy bridge hearing on the rule to
show cause why writ of certiorari
should not be granted tieing up the
work. Charles A. Bloomfield, the
prosecutor, has had his opportunity
to produce testimony upon which he
will base the argument for the writ
Justice Fort will get the matter Sep
tember 19 when he will decide for
or against the prosecutor, either
granting or dismissing the writ.
Should Justice Fort grant the writ
ii will completely tie up the work
and the Amboy bridge contracts will
be before the supreme court for re-
view Testimony will then be talk
en- for the review of the case before
the supreme court which convenes
in November. 1t is not likely that
the same testimony now taken will
be used but the case will be gone
over again with perhaps other experts
called in on both sides. This test
imony is then printed and the matter
argued before the supreme court on
tho opening day of the term or as
near thereafter as the court will hear
it.
Testimony Yesterday Afternoon.
Much of the testimony taken yes
terday afternoon at the closing of
the case for Mr.. Bloomfield had to
do with the approach on the South
Amboy side and to this objection
was entered by Lawyer Alan H.
Strong for the freeholdcrs on the
ground that it was not within the
scope of this hearing, the bridge
work being under an entirely differ
ent contract than that made with
Sandford & Harris and therefore not
relevant or material to this action.
ID. w. Clayton, clerk of the free
holders, was recalled upon the hear
ing being proceeded with, and ques-
toned as to the contract with Rue
& Fountain for the South Amboy
approach. He said it was not award
ed to the lowest bidder but to Rue
& Fountain because they were eX-
perienced builders of this sort of
work. He was also asked as to
q discrepancy between the amount
of the contract made with Sandford
e Harris for the bridge, $146,950 |
and the printed minutes which gave
the amount as S146,3 $50 The clerk /
read from the original minutes tho
resolution awarding the contract and
this gave the amount as S146,950 /
the same figures as appeared in the
contract. Tho mistake was Il typo /
Graphical error in the minutes.
Rue &Fountain's Contract.
VThe contract with Rue C Fountain
for the bridge approach was then
asked for by Lawyer Willard p. Voor-
lhees. County Collector Serviss /
sought for ii among some of the
clerks papers in his safe, but it was
not there and Solicitor Willis was
sent to his Office to see if he might
faav" one, the contracts being always
made in triblicate. This contract
had beer. liled with the State Road
Commissioner and the auditor and
expert in tho freaholder investigation
OF several months ago had had it /
so that Mr.. Willis was not sure he
could find a copy but he returned
with one and the hearing proceed
ed
The contract was offered and iden-
titled by Mr.. Clayton. Lawyer Strong
entered an objection to any test
imony about the document on the /
ground that 1t was not pertinent to
the bridge contract on which the .
hearing was being held. He also OBJ
iected on the ground that this was
a contract for a Y cadamized road /
and therefore irrelt ant. This con-
tract was for the road on Ridgeway
avenue and Fourth street and known