The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-07-10
HE'LL BRING SUIT.
City Attorney to Sue the Paw
ing Contractors.
Action of $3.50 Today Against
HanIey & Richie.
STOP THE PRACTICE.
STOP THE PRACTICE
Will Reform Slipshod Methods
of Charging Extras.
Prof. Harshbarger's Work Of
Checking Up Nearly Complete.

Suit will be filed today in the district
court by F. G. Dreaming, city attorney,
against Hanley & Richie, paving con-
tractors, to recover $3.50 which it is
i claimed is the amount of overcharge
for paving street intersections.
The suit will be filed on the grounds
that the bills for the work. even if at
all done, were not properly presented
and should not have been paid by the
city.
The $3.50 covers work done during the
year 1906 and does not go back of that
year: Other suits may be filed to take
in the paving done during the year
1905 but this has not been fully de-
termlned upon. No Investigations will
be made of the paving back of 1905.
The city attorney claims that the $3.50
which the contractors claimed for extra
work performed in repairing intersec-
tons which were damaged either by the
passage over them of a heavy sewer
excavating machine or by the cavein of
sewer should have not have been
charged in simply as paving. The vari-
Gus amounts should have been present
ed in detail and the kind of the work
specified and the bills then presented
to the mayor and the claims and ac-
counts committee for auditing and fin
ally to the council.
Instead, it is said, that these extra
charges were included in the sum total
of paving and returned by James Nc
monthly estimates to the city council.
The council allowed the claims, believ-
ing that it was simply the regular paw
ing contracted for since the estimate
cluded special or extra work.
Il am going to see whether I can't
put stop to such a practice" said
Dreaming. Il am going to see if a city
engineer can act for the mayor and
council. Unless the attorneys for the
contractors can catch us on some tech
nicality 1 don't see how We can help
winning this suit. 1t is a suit to re-
cover money. That's all there is to it.
THE books show that there was a
certain amount of paving done, and a
certain amount of paving was contract
ed for. The city paid for this paving
cred in a lot of extras that the council
knew nothing about in his estimate for
their regular paving work. This extra
work was probably done but the bills
for the work should have been present.
ed separately and passed on by the
council.
I'VE have dug up one bill for work
which was filed by Hanley & Ritchie
with the city engineer for extra work.
The bill bears the date of November,
1906, but no one in the council saw the
bill and it doesn't show that it was
ever filed with the city clerk or with
the council. The bill was paid, how
ever.
IF I do nothing else except show
them that this sort of thing can't be
done in the future, I will have accom-
plished something. But 1 believe we
can get this money back.
There isn't much to be got out of
the paving in 1905. 1t seems that every
thing was straight enough but the plats
show some little Inaccuracies which
would account for anything we might
find in that year. At least we can't find
anything satisfactory enough to make
it stick in the courts"
W. A. Harshbarger, who has been