The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1913-04-11

in the discussion which followed, it
was freely and openly stated that the
bids of some of the bidders and part
icularly the bids of Bolger, Mosser &
Willaman and that of Speitzer Roriok
& Co. We're below par; that the
amounts claimed for the expenses;
ETC., were understood to be a deduc-
ton from the purchase price Of the
bonds, which amount the bidder con-
sicered said bonds were worth below
par, and deponent further says that
ne is informed, verify believes and
charges the facts to be that all of the
cry officials who had anything to do
with the sale Of said bonds knew that
the amount the succ essful bidder, viz.
t'olger, Mosser & Wilaman, de-
manded under the guise Of expenses
anu services was in factma bonus,
commission or a deduction from the
par value Of the bonds and made in
that form for the express purpose of
avoiding the plain provisions of the
charter and laws of the state.
Further, deponent says that the sum
Of Six Thousand Dollars, {$6OOO.OO,
which defendants agreed to pay said
Bolger, Mosser & Willaman in excess
of said sum of Seven Hundred Fifty
Dollars. ($75O.0O) is a bonus or COM
mission for the handling of said bonds
and is not necessary and proper
charge for any services or expenses
which are lawfully chargeable against
he city on account of the issue Of
said bonds.
Deponent further says that this
action was submitted to the Honorable
Martin Hughes, Judge of the District
Court on Monday, the 1st day Of
April, 1913, with the understanding
nat decision would be rendered at
an early date and within one week
# the hearing if possible; that the
plaintiff herein and this deponent fear
hat unless the facts set forth in this
.'EiGavit and in the reply herein are
bought to the attention of the Dis
fiti Court and made part of the
e>"rd upon which decision herein
is BASED. that the plaintiffs rights
will le jeopardized and he will be
.rre!'trably injured by reason there
If: that there is not sufficient time
eft in which to make the usual eight
lay motion and plaintiff and this de-
.'onc'.i believe and fear that a de-
'is'on will be rendered herein before
he true facts in the case are
to- the Court. ,..
s'-@ That this affidavit is made foTr T the
purpose of securing an order to show
cause herein why this affidavit and
the facts herein contained and the
reply herein should not be made a
part of the record in this action to be
considered by the Court in determin-
ing the rights of the parties on the
order to show cause heretofore made
IN this action. which was returnable
IN April ], 1913, and submitted to
he Court at that time; that on ac-
count of the inability Of plaintiff to
'xamine the records in the office of
the City Clerk and ascertain the exact
facts with reference to the bid of
me purchasers of the bonds, BOlger,
Mosser & Willaman, and on account
1l the fact that plaintiff had no means
If knowing what attorneys were Sc
lected to make an examination Of
the bonds and give an opinion as to
heir legality herein, plaintiff was un-
able to ascertain the facts set forth
n this affidavit and to prepare proper
Ind suitable reply to the answer of
the defendant herein and was unab BILE
20 submit the facts fully to the Court
'llor 10 tnlS appl1catlOn.
n. B. ARNOLD.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
his 4th day of April, 1913.
r. c. PICKERING,
Notary Public, st. Louis Co., Mimi.
My commission expires Mar. 26, 1915.
(SeaD
REPLY.
State Of Minnesota, County of St.
Louis.-ss.
District Court, Eleventh Judicial Dis
trict.
JOSEPH Backus,
Plaintiff,
City Of Virginia; A. D: Heritage,
Michael Boylan, George Harvey
Charles w. Lundstrom, Adolph Kel-
Ter, Fred J. NOLAN, Conrad Matt
son, r. j. McGhee, and Dan Coffey
aldermen composing the council OF