The San Francisco call., 1908-11-10
HES ANOTHER IS
H[DGER'S ANSWER
Architect Dubs Eminent Author
ity on EgyptoIogy as Novice
in Building
Answer TO Suit in Superior
Court Sizzles With Accusa-
tiOns Against Jere Lynch

Right merrily has Henry H. Hedger,
eminent architect, responded to the last
move of jeremiah Lynch, eminent
property owner, in the little game of
you're the goat which the two are
engaged in playing through the
medium of the local courts. Hedger,
who originally sued Lynch for $4,225
and was in turn made defendant in a
suit for s76,197, all growing out of
trouble over the Ibis building in Bush
street near Kearny, will this morning
file an answer to Lynch's cross COM
plaint. The answer is no ordinary,
technical affair, but real, life sized
communication to the court in which
Hedger says in so many words that
Lynch doesn't know what he is talking
about.
Hedger is the architect who built the
structure which now houses on it's
lower floor a gay Partisan cafe and
temporarily-on its upper floor, the
Press club. Hedger, claiming that Jere
Lynch refused to settle his just debts
for the erection of the building.
brought suit for the amount he claimed
was due him, and Lynch came back
with a cross complaint alleging that
Hedger had exceeded by several thou
sand dollars the price for which he
had agreed to erect the structure.
Hedger's answer to this cross com
plant, to be filed this morning by his
attorneys, Thomas, Gerstle, Frick &
Beedy, does not question Lynch's ad-
mitted knowledge concerning the
architecture of the pyramids and
Egyptology in general, but it does say
that when it comes to a modern build
ing in an up to date city Lynch is a
novice. The controversy has found it's
way into the Bohemian club, of which
both parties to the action are members,
and it is rumored that a partisan war
will result If the battle wakes any
warmer
In his answer to Lynch's cross COM
plant Hedger says that Lynch orig
inally pointed out to him a four story
class c structure which Hedger had
designed and asked what similar
building on his own property in Bush
street would cost. Hedger says that he
agreed to put up a similar building for
$50, 900 and to take 311 per cent of it's
cost for his services as architect.
To show that Lynch is now acting in
bad faith in claiming that Hedger
bunkoed him out of double the original
price set, Hedger asserts that in Feb
ruary, 1907. Lynch applied to the board
of works for a building permit in
which he described the intended struc-
ture as a five story brick and cement
building to cost s125,000. The subse-
quent addition of a sixth story and
other changes ordered by Lynch are
the reason, says Hedger. that the final
cost mounted to $4,000. But this is
not all. Hedger says that Lynch
"butted in" and by his interference
caused unnecessary expenditure.
Hedger says in his answer:
Plaintiff alleges that the defendant
erected the building himself by days
work. and his ignorance of building
operations, his continual presence at
said building. his unwarranted inter
ference with plaintiff and the various
contractors engaged in constructing
said building, his neglect in letting
contracts within a reasonable time, his
omission to put definite time clauses in
his contract and his requests and de-
mands for additional changes in the
plans, specifications and detail draw
ings and requests for delays in the
building operations, were the causes Of
months of delay and the causes Of
needless expense, as a result of which
the plaintiff herein and said defendant
were damaged to an amount now un-
known to plaintiff"
Hedger also sets forth figures to
show that Lynch now has an income
of S22, 200 per year from the building,
which is more than per cent of the
admitted investment, and says that
there are no grounds for the claim that
he made suicidal leases on the basis of
an original cost of $4,000