The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-03-25

that the complainant will not vouch 1 that the witnesses will testify to the . truth and that it is the purpose of the plaintiff to appear with counsel and assist the committee.
 i Charge one alleges incompetence up- l on the part of the city engineer and
 asserts that he has established erron-
 eous grades, upon Stratford avenue, ir | Crown street, in, Spring street, in . Ashley street, in Livingston place, iIl Harmon street and in Hawthorne St. Some of these errors are alleged to have been expensive to the city and l to private persons.
 It is further set up that a sewer i'll Livingston place was extended 15O feet 1 without authorization. and that the extension cannot be used, and that the
 extension was permitted to enable a l contractor to reimburse himself for a i loss caused by a mistake made by the i eng ineer.
 ! Charge asserts that sewers have i[been extended in disregard of the or dinances and Charge that the ordi- nances have been disregarded in ex- pending city money and Charge that
 money has been diverted from one ap-
 propriation to another without war rant. Charge 6 alleges eXtrayagance in administering the affairs of the of l flee. Charge asserts that the engl- i neer has appropriated facilities Of the { office to his own use and used the de- ! partment automobile for private pur- 1 poses Section alleges that employes ! haze been paid theif salaries while 1 they were not working, Section 9, t1A4 : the City Engineer borrowed money ol 1 his employees, and that he has paid money where no services have been 1 rendered is set up in Charge 10. Charge II asserts that he has submitted ex- pense accounts for expenses not in- cured.
 The friends of City Engineer Me Kenna had much to say today rela- {, tive to the premature publication of i the charges, which they assert were i not given out by MT. McKenna nor his l attorney.
 l <J. B.. Klein, counsel for City En- i gineer McKenna, said, this morning: "The: publication of these charges be- 1 fore they were considered by the com 1 mittee constitutes a libel upon my client. The plaintiff, doesn't even pre- tend that he is able to prove his al
 legations and asserts that he will not 1 try to prove them, throwing the bur- den of sustaining the charges upon i the committee. The plaintiff speci- l ficaily declares that he will not vouch ! that the witnesses he names will testify to the facts he alleges, all of which smacks of a desire to involve
 MT. McKenna in odium without talk ] ing the responsibility therefor or fur i nishing the proof"
 Those close to the city engineer as- sert that there is nothing in the ! charges which will not be refuted by 1 evidence. They allege that the | charges of incompetence merely re- , late to differences of opinion as 10 ! how particular work should be done. | and that these are matters in which ! engineers will differ. That some min . or errors have occurred is not denied, T, greater in number or degree than is i the case in performing any such work.
 They also assert that the entire diff 1 ficulty is the result of malice growin-s out Of the difference between the city engineer and MT. MuliVihill, as the result of contest in which blows were exchanged and following which MT. Mulvihill was removed from the service.