Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1910-01-28
OFFICER is SUSPENDED
FOR MONTH WITHOUT PAY
While generating Mr.. Pearse OF
Any Selfish Motive In Violating
Paving SPECIFICATIONS and .peem'ns
Charge Necessary, Court Says He
shouid Have Sought Authority.

Judge 4. ]. Barham handed down
an opinion IN the Cooperation Court
yesterday morning suspendlng city
Engineer r. u. Pearse from Office for
tho mouth OF February and directing
that the city recover against Mr..
Pearse the costs OF prosecuting the
casc. This opinion reverses the find
ings OF Mayor Marquis jones. who is
sued an order removing the city en-
gineer from Office for reducing the
amount OF sand base under the yftri.
fed trick paving laid on the city
streets ty Contractor J. w Davis. In
violation OF the provisions OF the
specifications fer the paving. Mr..
pearsc appealed 10 the Corporation
Court and Judge Barham heard the
case several weeks ugo.
At the request cf the city council.
Mayor Jones investigated the actions
of Mr.. Pearse In reducing the
amount of the sand base. Many wit
nesseas. including several paving ex-
perts from other cities, were exam
med by Mayor Jones. the testimony
being taken by stenographcr. At
torney q u. Bachelor appeared for
MI. Pearse and City Attorney j. A.
MassIe. represented the interests of
the city. Following a hearing that
lasted several days, Mayor Jones
found the city engineer guilty OF mis-
conduct in once and ordered his re-
moval.
When the case was appealed to the
higher court. typewriter copies OF
The evidence adduced at the hearing
81 the mayor were presented 10
Judge Bcrham and by agreement no
further evidence was offered in the
higher court. Attorneys Bachelor and
Massie argued the case for an entire
day and then Judge Barham took the
matter under advisement.
Me Peeun;ary Consideration.
Judge Barham states In his opin-
ion In the case that the case mar
fowed down to the admission Of the
city engineer that he ordered the
sand base to be reduced from four
TO two inches on streets where there
we're street car tracks without hrst
getting the consent OF either the
highways and sewers committee on
the city council. The opinion then
goes on to state that the city not
only did not put on any evidence
tending in the least TO show any
pecuniary advantage 20 accrue to Mr..
Psarse by reason Of the cnange. or
any other corrupt motive on his part,
but admits that no such motive act
uated him and that no such pecuniary
advantage was considered by him. II
is also conceded. says the opinion.
that Mr.. Davis knew no more about
che change than the city.
Change was Desirable.
The court then states that the
change which Mr.. Pearse orusred &c
he made is shown by the ancCntrn
dicted evidence OF ali the experts who
testified to have been not only desir
able, but necessary in the interest VI
the city: that satisfactory Job
could not have been obtained without
II, and that the change was one
peculiarly within the province Ct an
engineer.
Should Have Gone 20 Council.
! In bis testimony. Mr.. PearSe safa
thst lie Intended TO notify the council
Of the change he had made 10 ihe
specifications. On cross examination
he said. IN effect. that he did not
bring the matter 10 the attention o.
the council AZ once tecsusc The body
had suutbed him on sin,lSr occasions.
Referring 10 this part u the test
mcry. the courl held that Mr.. PeaTse
should have taken his matter 20 ths
coarcil al once, REGARDLESS q The To-
istiors existing between HIN and The
menDtTs OF that body; that he owed
a Gcty 70 Ia. city Is q cit cfscer and
bad no chf % jeopardizc the inter-
ests G Chr people even 20 escape an
other sn1Lbing. or words 20 that e.
fec. The court pointed c1i trat
though Mr.. rssrse had rot 1eer Suii-
q CT malfesssncs % misfeasauce. Ms
actica bed involved the city and me
contractor n n controversy. fhe arai
result of which vas dcabtfli.
II co1ciusicr. ihc opir.ca states
t.sat tie city e-viae,r should have
pat I'D 70 the CITY attorney ~ scrsi
problem which xss necessarily IN
VOWED in tue engineering problem ne
had discovered. instead q leaving ne
Consc1ucnces q bis ovr possible fnis
Interpretations of sifc contract 70 TIRE
c.ocbiissl issJe o. ieEai ccufrCversies
TO arise aftcr the work vas dcuc.
Following u The order which Judxg
Bsrhe1 isssc,s IN aee case.
IT Is considered. BY the court ard
80 ordered that the judgment q the
mayor a this city reu1cylnE thr said
7. II Parse from BIS once - city
engineer Aforesaid b. revoked
and aruul'cd. zni fer re1sc-s a2-
oczfirg 60 fas courl explained
N 81 opinion q trc ccuri
1i--d vita the payers IN tais csuze
~ part cf De record rcrcin. 10 81
ccasi1fred - Tie cotri and 80 order
ed IA tlc sad 7. 4. Pcsrsc Dc and
be hereby q 1Igpc11ed from sis SAD
CIcs 81 cfty eagfuecr fcr tic rei 90