Carolina watchman. [volume] (Salisbury, N.C.) 1871-1937, 1913-09-24

Won Nsrta, an expert whose ser.
vices had been secured by Chair
man Trott, submitted report as to
court house: that the chairman
declared |. the report adopted,
Peeler and Hartman voting for
adoption and Harrison and Bailey
protesting. That said report is
not responsive to the issue, is
without regard to the plans and
specifications, is in some respects
false IN fact and 10 in she
nature of an argumentative con-
fession and avoidance on behalf
of the architect and contractor
and should be expunged from the
County Records.
5. That on the first Monday
in June, 1918, on motion to sp.
provo architects estimate for
payment on Court House contract,
Hartman and Peeler voted in the
affirmative and Harrison in the
negative and Chairman Trott de-
cided the tie in favor of the pay
ment of the estimate: that on the
19sh of Juno, 1918, the Board
passed an order to direct the
architect to approve no more
estimates for payment until
building eonformed to plans and
specifcations, Trott and Peeler
being unavoldably absent, Hart
uan presiding and Harrison and
Bailey voting that on the first
Monday in July action was de-
ferred on account of the absence
of the county attorney: that Oh
July 28th, 1918, the action Of
June 10, 1913. was declared re-
soinded and architects estimate
approved for payment, Hartman
and Peeler voting in the afirma.
tive aud Harrison and Bailey in
the negative and Chairman Trott
casting the deciding vote: that
under similar conditions and with
same vote another voucher was
declared approved for payment
fest Monday in September, 1918.
6 That plaintiffs protested be-
tore the Board the right of P.
A. Hartman to vote on the
motion to adopt the Won
Nerta report and tie vouchers
fer the payment of the Architects
estimate on the court house con.
tract and now protest his vote on
these questions and aver that his
vote was illegally cast and counted
for that he was and is interested
in the matter and the result of the
action, having undertaken with
the contractor for their mutual
profit and advantage to furnish
granite for said building and hav.
ing furnished the defective granite
that is the sutj ct of this contro-
versy: that but for his illegal vote
payment on court house, as above
indicated, would have been refused
because it failed to conform to
specifications.
- Z. That the King Lumber
Company has violated its cotract
with the Board of Commissioners
for Rowan County without fault
on the part of said county, and
has .disregarded the terms of its
contract in respect to building the
court house: that the court house
being erected by the King Lumber
Company is not according to plans
and specifications in that that the
granite Is of low grade, having
wide varity and texture, serious
discoloratlons and entirely un.
suited for use az ornamental
building stone and is an inferio +
quality of Rowan County granite,
manifestly taken from the bould.
ers or surface beds: that the stone
is not cut true and sqaure, the
jointing is irregular and the work
manship inferior: that said gran
ite is now being pointed contrary
to specification so a. to hide the
broken edges and inferior work.
manship as far as possible: that
the face brick wall is inferior,
with joints large and irregular,
and a rough piece Of work; that
the concrete work is inferior.
not having the cement as called
for by specifications: that part of
the building is out of plumb the
walls over.hanging at the top, and
is otherwise defective in material