The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-04-13
NON SUIT LIKELY
IN FAVOR Of CITY
Courts Ruling on Evidence in
Grouse Case May Result in
Formal Order To-Day.
Il O Ids CONTRACT BINDING
City Asserts Flun1e Work Was
Not Satisfactory to Super
intendent Davis.

1iltcnuenC Davis.
| Under ruling on certain evidence
made by Judge Waddill in the suit OF
the city of Richmond against the
Grouse Construction Company, and the
counter suit of the Grouse Construc-
ton Company against the city of Rich
mond, growing out OF the failure OF
the first 1ume built at the settling
basin, on trial Yesterday in the United
States Circuit Court, non-suit is ex-
pected to be entered this morning in
the Grouse suit against the city. the
amount involved being s9,oI3.35.
When the two cases We're presented
to the court it was agreed TO try them
together, the question at issue being
much the same. though each side was
contending for a verdict of a different
amount. While the Grouse people are
suing for a percentage of the amount
\ alleged to be due, the city is seeking
| damages in the sum of S63,944.63, the
| claim being that the flume contractors
had failed utterly in their work, neces-
| stating the construction of second
| flume. connecting the settling basins
with the Pump-House.
Proved Contract Wild.
| City Attorney Pollard. Assistant City
| Attorney Anderson and Henry Taylor.
representing the municipality. asked
for a non-suit in the action brought
/
| that fthe Crou7e Company had not
proved that the work was satisfactory
| to the Superintendent of the Water
| Department, who was to be the ar
tract was proved to be valid and bind
Ing. the ruling of Judge Waddlll on
this point leading TO the assumption
! that the non-suit will be ordered and
| granted to-day.
| The hearing, which began yesterday
morning was continued throughout the
! day. although little. progress in the
/ way of taking testimony was made,
1 Charles V. Meredith. counsel for the
4 Grouse Construction Company, brought
4 on a sudden objection and interrupt
| ton when he asked witness whether
or not the contractors had proceeded
| with the work In accordance with
| plans submitted as evidence, and which
the witness held in his hand at the
time the question was propounded.
Mr. Taylor's objection resulted in the
temporary Withdrawal of the jury,
after which there was an extended
argument, leading UP 10 the question
of non-suit.
Damage or No Damage.
In the event. however, that the
! Grouse claim is thrown out of court
that concern will appear hereafter as
to decide what damage the city shall
receive, If it shall receive damages
at all.
The following Witnesses have been 9,
1
Y. Mann, Richard NJ. Boiling, G.. Ora
ham Brown and Jens ]. Jensen,
For the city D: c. Richardson,
. Charles z Boiling, F. u. Davis; II
lSins, ]. Amber Johnston. W. l., Car
neal. Howard L. Whitlock. ]. j. smith
Robert NJ. Stamper, William Lawton
Andrew Robertson. James A. Bailey,
Joseph e. Heindl and j. c. Clifton
Calls 1t Distinct Victory.
City Engineer Charles II. Boiling
designer of the settling basins and OF
the Inflated flume said last night
i tinct victory for the city-that all
| question regarding the city's having
to pay the balance claimed by the
4 Grouse Company for the full contract
i price of the nume was set at rest by
1 the ruling of the court In the hear
i ing. which goes on to-day. the ques-
/ ton at issue is whether the city can
7 recover from the Grouse Company
Il money already paid out for what af-
4 forwards proved TO be defective work.
/ The same point will be made in that
accepted by the city. and that The
4 work was not satisfactory to the
/ Superintendent of the Water Works
named In the contract as the final
/ authority.
1T should be remembered, however,
/ said Mr. Boiling, that the city used
a portion of the Grouse Company's
construction. The new fume was in
/ laI &c beeIes Dull on lNe ipuHuHllottS,
and even on the invert laid by the
| Grouse Company, and in the citys
/ claim against the Grouse Company for
refund Of the money paid, think 1t
I Is entitled to credit for the excava-
I lions and material used"
Point Raised by Lawyers.
i The point on which the Grouse suit
i was practically thrown out of court
4 was raised during the morning. when
i the first witness was put on the stand
by Mr.. Taylor, who has appeared in
Il Mr.. Boiling.
1 While prepared to prove by engi-
Il neers who built a test section that
4 had IL been properly constructed, the
hume designed by Mr.. Boiling would
have stood, City Attorney Pollard said
In his opening statement that that was
not the issue; that the contractor should
II have followed the specifications even
4 If he believed the fiume would not
4 stand.
81 might pay man to build me a
4 wooden horse" said Mr.. Pollard, no
would know that the horse couldn't
go, but 1t would be his duty to build
1, r :, "a sin, IL 4