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


and deliver contracts with said
bidders as set forth in Paragraph
IL Of the answer herein, admits that
the copy of the bid of Bolger, Mosser
& Willaman, attached to said answer
and marked Exhibit A. is a true
COPY Of the original bid submitted by
said Bolger, Mosser & Willaman and
considered by the City Council herein.
Further replying, plaintiff denies
that it was necessary for the special
council of said city to take and keep
the original bid of said Bolger, Mosser
& Willaman and alleges that a cert
flied copy of said bid would answer
every and all purposes that the orig
inal bid could answer, and alleges that
said bid was withdrawn from the Of
fee of the City Clerk for the express
purpose of preventing inspection
thereof and preventing any person
outside of the attorneys representing
the city from knowing the exact
terms of said bid.
Further plaintiff says, that prior to
the commencement of this action
plaintiff caused investigation to be
made Of the records and files in the
office of the City Clerk, regarding said
bond issue and alleges and charges the
facts to be that said bid could not
be found and that no receipt there
for could be found on record in the
office Of the City Clerk and plaintiff
had no means of ascertaining the
exact terms Of said bid.
Plaintiff further says that there
after and on the afternoon of March
%, 1913, the City Clerk of the City
of Virginia delivered to plaintiffs at
torneys a copy Of the bid of said
Bolger, Mosser & Willaman, together
with q letter thereto attached signed
by Bert Fesler, a copy Of which said
letter and bid is hereto attached
marked exhibit A. and Exhibit B.
and made a part hereof; and that that
was the first opportunity plaintiff had
OF examining said bid.
Further replying, plaintiff specifical-
ly denies each and every allegation
set forth in Paragraph Is OF defen-
dants' answer.
Further replying, plaintiff denies
each and every allegation set forth
in Paragraph II Of defendants
answer, and alleges the facts to be
that heretofore and prior to the time
Of filing bids upon the bonds men
toned in the complaint and in the
answer of the defendants, there was {
between the city officials in charge
Of the said bond proposition and al
bidders upon said bonds, that the CIT!
of Virginia would furnish at it's owl
expense a legal opinion of any one o
five of the leading bond attorneys o
the United States including the flrm
Of Wood & Oakley of Chicago AM
Storey, Thorndike, Palmer & Dodg'
Of Boston, and that in addition there
to the City of Virginia would secur'
and pay for the printing and prepare
ton of the necessary bonds required
in negotiating said sale and take al
steps necessary to secure a favorable
opinion Of the attorneys passing upol
the validity Of said bonds. and plain
tiff further alleges and charges tn
facts to be that it was understood b!
all OF the city officials in charge o
said bond proposition that the 81,
Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dol
lars, ($G750.00) mentioned by the sue
sessful bidders, Bolser, Mosser
Willaman, was the amount said bid
ders were bidding on said bonds be
low the par value thereof.
Further replying, plaintiff denie!
each and every allegation contained
in Paragraph IS Of defendants answer
and specifically denies that the Cit,
OF Virginia and its officials sold Of
intended to sell the bonds OF said cit,
for their full par value with interest
as provided by law, in entering into
said contracts, Exhibits B and c.
Further replying, plaintiff denies
each and every allegation in Para
graph 16 of defendants answer ant
denies that the said sum of Six Thou
sand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars
($6750.0O) was proper charge fo1
any services necessary to be performed
In securing legal opinions, printing Of
lithographing said bonds or any othe
expenses incident to the issue Thereof
and denies that any sum in excess O.
the sum Of Seven Hundred Fifty Dol
lars. H75O.O0) was necessary or re-
Quisite therefore, and alleges that tn,
full sum. of Six Thousand Dollars
($6O00.0O) was intended to be pait
by defendant city to the successful
bidders. Bolger, Mosser & Willaman
as commission or bonus for the sal,
of said bonds.
Plaintiff further alleges that on tn,
goth day Of March and prior to tn,