Los Angeles herald., 1908-10-08
NEW INJUNCTION
STOPS PRINTING
OF ROAD BONDS
TEMPORARY ORDER GRANTED
BY JUDGE BORDWELL
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MADE
DEFENDANTS TO SUIT
Plaintiffs Claim That Contract Given
to w. P. Jeffries Company Was
Founded in Conspiracy
and Fraud
JUDGE WALTER BoRDwELL Of

FUDGE WALTER BORDWELL of
the superior court yesterday is
- sued a temporary restraining or
der to prevent the board of supervisors
and the w. p. Jeffries company from
carrying out the contract for the print
Ing and furnishing of the good roaos
bonds
The matter will be heard Defore
Judge Hutton Friday. october 16.
The Injunction suit was filed at a
late hour yesterday by William Lind
say and John Mushrush, property own
ers of Los Angeles county, through
their attorney. Willard G.. Lyons, asso-
ciated with former Judge John u.
Works, counsel for the advisory board.
The defendants named in the COM
plant are the board of supervisors,
collectively and individually; the W..
p. Jeffries company and the treasurer
and auditor of Los Angeles county:
Although the complaint filed by John
d. Works Immediately prior to the re-
scinding of the private sale of the good
roads bonds was ordered stricken from
the files by Judge Bordwell, as pre-
requisite to the withdrawal from the
sale by the Los Angeles Trust com
pany and James II. Adams q Co., mat
ters involved in that complaint, 1t is
expected, will be thoroughly gone into
as result of the action of yesterday.
Charges of conspiracy and fraud made
at that time are repeated in the latest
complaint, and the plaintiffs claim
Jeffries' bid was accepted as a result of
the alleged secret agreement entered
into at that time between the purchas-
ers and the solid three-SupervisorS
Patterson, Eldridge and wilson.
Charge Political Influence
Furthermore, they claim, the w. P.
Jeffries company and its representa-
tives have. a great political influence.
and thew indicate that 1t was in pay
ment for political favors that the soild
three voted TO accept the next TO the
highest bid submitted for the pruning
OF the bonds.
Lindsay and Mushrush. in >the COM
plant of yesterday, after reciting the
facts leading up to and Immediately
following the good roads bonds elec-
tion of July 81. reiterate the cnarges
made previously that Patterson. Eid-
ridge and Wilson violated their duties
and acted fraudulently when they dis
posed of the $3,500000 good roads bonds
at private sale to the Los Angeles trust
company and j. H. Adams & GO. IN
this sale, they say, it was understood
and agreed that the Los Angeles Trust
company and James H. Adams & Co.
should furnish the engraved and print
ed bonds, and by virtue OF said un-
lawful and fraudulent sale of bonds
the trust company and Adams & co.
contracted with the Jeffries company
to fr,rnish the bonds This understand
ing. they say, was had even before the
nrivate sale was made, and was
brought about by reason of the fact
that 1t was known that w. +: JerIrleS
company and its representatives had
great influence with Patterson, Ed
ridge and Wilson, and had used their
political power and position to support
and elect them to office.
When the conspiracy and unlaWfui
sale of the bonds became known" says
the complaint, "the resulting lndlgna-
ton and criticism of the proceeolngs
resulted in the withdrawal of the bid
after the Jeffries company had IN
Cured an expense of $3.50 in preparing
the bonds.
September 81, it is claimed, ]. r.
Martin, representing James II. Adams
& Co, addressed the board or super
visors in an effort to influence tnem
to award the contract for furnishing
the bonds to the Jeffries company, and
thereby relieve the purchasers from
the obligation. Lindsay and Mushrusn
allege that Martins action was taken
in an effort to cover up ana conceai
by apparent openness, the fraud anu
conspiracy and secret understanding
between Patterson, Eldridge and Will
son and the Los Angeles Trust com
pany and James H. Adams & Co" and
they claim it was secreely understood
that when the contract was to be let
it would be given to w. p. Jeffries
company.
Bids presented by the Neuner COM
pany of $16S4 and by the security
Bank Note company of $1475 and $lI3o,
for the furnishing of the bonds are
noted in the complaint, any one OF
which is lower than that presented py
the Jeffries company which called Tor
an expenditure of $2500.
Better Offers Rejected
The work submitted by the lower
bidders, 1t is contended by Lindsay
and Mushrush. is superior to that OF
w. P. Jeffries company, yet, notWith-
standing this fact their offers were re-
sscted.
The plaintiffs ask that all proceed
ings for the accepting of tn. bid and
awarding of the tract be declared
Illegal and void, and that the de-
PENDANTS be enjoined from carrying out
the contract; that the county auditor
be prevented from issuing warrants
for moneys due under the contract
and the county treasurer from paying
out money therefor.
Nine bids fo- printing and furnishing
the good roads bonds were submitted
TO the board of supervisors September
% These ranged from $3.50 to $9SOO.
Next to the largest bid was that OF the
Jenries company, $500, and notwith-
standing the efforts of Supervisors
Alexander and Manning to have a
lower bid accepted, and, failing this, to
secure continuance of the matter.
Patterson, Eldridge and Wilson voted
in favor of the Jeffries offer. A num-
Der or samples Of bonds were presented
Ly other companies, some of which. 1t
was urged by Alexander and Manning,
We're equal, If not superior, to those |
offered by the successful bidders.
The three mem who voted in favor
of the Jeffries bid explained their
position by saying they were in favor
of home industry, while Alexander and
Manning said they had but one OBJ
ject a saving to the county