The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1907-02-04
ILLEGAL WERE
PROCEEDINGS
Of the City Council and
Service Board
SAYS SMITH IBENNET1
Representing the State i'll
the Sensational Case
Claimed Marion Paid SIS, 900 More
Than was Necessary for Her
Sewage Disposal Plant.

The sensational motion filed Satur-
day by Auditor OF State W. ID. Gull
tional Bank against the City of Ma
rion and Herman Blaich against
the Clinton Foundry and Machine
company, were argued by, counsel
AIonday in the common pleas court
with Judge Duncan of Hancock coun-
ty on the bench.
The auditor Of state and tho attor-
ney-general were represented by
Smith w. Bennett. of Bucyrus, and
e. b. Durfee of this city, and the
Clinton Foundry and Machine COM
,pany. was represented by Crissinger
and CUTLERY.
Counsel for the state opened the
argument, claiming that the auditor
of state in the event of the city sol
icitor failing to enetr suit of this
nature, making the city party de-
fendant, has the right to enter as a
defendant. The motion asked for
leave to enter both suits mentioned
as party defendant.
! Counsel for the state auditor
claimed tnat the proceedings of the
City Council and the Board of Pub
lie Service in constructing the Garb-
,s.se and Sewage Disposal plants were
Ientirely illegal and the Council and
the Service Board were grossly de-
ceived.
They claimed that the appropria.
tions made by council were for the
construction of n sewage disposal
plant and that at no time was a
garbage crematory mentioned in the
proceedings. George H.. Pierson.
the engineer employed to make the
plans. specifications and drawings.
according to counsel. was vice pres
ident, general manager aud engineer
iof the Clinton Foundry and Machine
company, and other firms had no op-
portunity Of entering contest for
the contract, The other parts set up
by counsel for the auditor of state
were contained in the motion which
was given in detail in Saturday
Mirror.
The attorneys for the defense
claimed that the auditor had no right
TO enter the suit as a party defend
ant. They claimed that there was
not fraud In the. transaction and
that there was competition in the
bidding, one firm besides the Clinton
Foundry and machine company en-
Itering an estimate which was reject
Ied because 1t was too high.
In the concluding address to the
court Smith w. Bennett for the
state auditor, said that the bid
menlioned by the opposing counsel
was made by some firm in .Pennsyl-
vania. The bid was impossible be-
cause 1t was for a larger amoupt
IMAM the sum council decided to
spend on the plant. 1--WE do not
want TO get into the case merely to
get possession of the $4,000 which is
IN dispute in the case OF Blaich
against the Clinton Foundry and
Machine company. or in the other
case said the attorney, "but we are
after about $4,000 which is the
amount the city paid for its plant in
excess of what 1t should have paid
| In the Afternoon session, the plain
tiifs called Judge b. G. Young Ia
the witness stand. Asked concern
ling what conversation he had with
City Solicitor Donithen on the sub.
lject, Judge Young said that he told
Donithen he wanted the case heard
lon Its merits; that the answer filed
lby Donithen for the city raised no
Tissue and was yalueless.