The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-12-19
SUES THE CONTRACTORS
City Attorney Brings Action on Ac-
count Sixth Ward Sewer.

The city of Topeka through F. G.
Dreaming, city attorney, filed suit in
the district court against Han1ey
Rltchle, sewer contractors, who built
the Sixth ward sewer, for S19,704 1t is
Claimed that the sewer has been con-
structed at variance from the original
plans and that the above amount con-
slSts or an overcharge. The petition
states that these overcharges were al
loWed IN the estimates made by James
j. McCabe, former city engineer, but
without the knowledge or consent of
the city council and mayor In addition
interest at per cent is asked on the
February 1, 1906, the time of the com
pletion of the sewer to date. OF the
$19,1O4 asked for, SIS 1875 is for excaya-
ton which 1t is claimed is in excess of
moved while $4.579 is asked for alleged
shortages in the lineal length of tile
and brick sewer
Later a second suit will be filed
against the Fidelity Deposit & Guar
anty company, who are sureties on the
bond furnished by the contractors This
suit VIII be for a similar amount as
that specified in the action brought
against the contractors.
The firm of Hanley & Richie is now
dissolved. John Richie still remains
in Topeka and has at present a num-
Der of city paving contracts on his
hands while j. d. Hanley has his head
quarters located in Salt Lake City and
has large number of contracts in that
part of the west
The firm was awarded the contract
on February 6, 1905, and about April
1 they commenced on the construction
of the sewer completing it by February
l, 1905.
The sewer, commonly known as the
Sixth ward, but technically known as
sewer district 26. is bounded by Blu
nj n q nc n CT i
Twelfth streets on the SOUTH Pine and
Spruce streets on the west and Sixth
avenue on the north extending north
erly on Elmwood avenue and the alley
west of Elmwood avenue, a distance
three blocks within the city limits.
Payments were made on the sewer
contract by the city attorney every 80
days upon estimates furnished by the
city engineer to.the mayor and council
which should be based upon the
amount of the sewer constructed up to
that time. Ninety per cent of such es-
Inmates were paid as they were pre-
sented the full amount due being paid
up in full upon the completion of the
contract. Nine monthly payments were
made the total sum being $75,872.22.
The plaintiff further alleges that
James F. McCabe was city engineer of
the city of Topeka at all times during
the construction of the sewer during
and, without the knowledge, consent or
authority of the mayor and council, in
cluded in the estimates, and Hanley &
Richie overcharged the city of To-
peka and the city of Topeka paid for,
a large amount of different sized main
and lateral sewers, which Hanley &
Richie never constructed at all, and
the sizes and amount of the overcharge
for each main and lateral sewer are as
follows:
About 100 lineal feet of 3O-inch
brick sewer, at 1884 per pinea1
1901 - .;....;... :....: 90 :..:...;..S oo4
rified pipe sewer, at $3.50 per hneal
foot ......... ........... 1875
About $50 Hneal feet of 27-inch Wit
rif1ed pipe sewer, at $40 per
About 100 lineai feet of 24-inch
vitrif1ed pipe sewer, at $40 per
lineal foot $40
About 400 lineal feet of 1s-inch
vitrif1ed pipe sewer, at $1.6S per
lineal foot ................ 672
About zoo lineal feet of 15-inch
vitrif1ed pipe sewer, at $1.32 per
lineal foot 264
About 1000 lineal feet of 12-inch
lineaI foot ................... >. 1900
About $50 Iineal feet of 1O-inch
vitrif1ed pipe sewer, at Ssc per
lineal foot 220
About 800 lineal feet of s1inch
vitrified pipe sewer, at SIC per
lineal foot 435
About 200 lineal feet of 21-inch
vitrified pipe sewer, at $2.32 per
linea1 foot NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.. 464
Total overcharges for different
sizes of main and lateral sewers. 81, $40
The plaintiff further alleges that,
without the knowledge, consent or
authority of the mayor and council of
the city of Topeka, James F. McCabe
included in the estimates from time to
time, and the city paid for, excavating
large quantities of earth. loose rock
and solid rock at contract prices, but
which the defendants did not excavate.
1t is alleged that the amounts of over
charges for the excavation of earth,
loose rock and solid rock, allowed by
McCabe's estimates and paid for by
the city are as follows:
About 10000 cubic yards of earth,
at the reasonable value of soc
per cubic yard. 1000
About 5000 cubic yards of loose
rock, at 75c per cubic yard. $3.50