Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-03-24

iSteIIeu 10 ire, lldt on FeoruaTS, the
18th. 1913. Mr. Devins made demand
of the City and County Of Honolulu
in the sum of s23 10 for what is term,
cd Construction Of VOTERS Sidewalk,
in which the city and county is charg-
cd the sum of $3.50 for / y days work
Claimed to have been performed by
Mr.. Hardesty, $50 for IL days work
claimed TO be done by Mr.. Deyine.
end also for work performed By others.
Il also find that under date of Feb
ruary 18th, 1913, Mr. Devine filed a
demand with the City and County of
Honolulu for the sum of $685. for
work designated as Street Widenins
Love Estate In this demand the
sum of $500 appears, being for five
days work ct the rate of $500 per
cay for work claimed TO have been
performed by Mr. HardeSty, ana the
sum of $3.50, being for Ga days
work at $500 day. for work claimed
tc have been performed by Mr. Devine,
as well as other items for other labor.
in two CT the claims specifically
referred to this department, the
amount charged for Mr.. Hardesty is
$500 per day, and the same amount is
charged for Mr.. Devine per Gay, the
other persons employed on the work
being charged for at the rate of $500
Ter day.
Work Not Authorized.
IN connection with the Schnaek.
Chalmers and Wallace jobs, the city
and county engineer, under cate OF
March Is, 1913, addressed a letter to
the chairman of the committee on
loads, bridges, parks and public i'm
proyements, in which ii appears that
Tie only work authorized BY this de-
partment in connection with the claim
based upon the Wallace job was of
The value Of about $160.49, instead of
$315.70 as claimed.
Il am informed that the only portion
of that demand that was authorized
by any one in the road department
was that relating to the laying of the
walk and the setting of the curb, and
that the work OF grading the street,
moving the fence and hedge and re-
moving the kiawe tree was never au-
|ihorized by any person in that depart
ment
''The city and county engineer, in
the letter referred to, says that the
claim OF Mr.. Deyine is out of all pro-
portion, especially as everything
tools, material and all, were furnished
by the road department, and he, there
fore, refused to o. X. the bill. The.
city engineer in the same letter in
forms the chairman Of the committee
on roads, bridges, parks and public
fYr1fa ~ va TTf fhnf oc RI tho ffh nr
claims (based on the Schnaek and
Chalmers jobs) there was absolutely
no authorization for that work from
his office. and he could not in justice
TO himself o. X. the claim.
Il have not been able to find any
enc having authority who authorized
the 'Schnack job, and the Chalmers
job or any portion of the Wallace
job except the item relative to laying
and setting curb. | have been in
formed, however, although / have not
been able to verify the information,
that this extra work was ordered by
Mr. Hardesty himself Aside from the
Improperly of the thing. a supervisor,
acting alone, has no authority to incur
any obligation on the part of the city
and county.
Law Provides Penalty.
The law, to which attention has al
ready been directed in this communi-
cation, provides that a violation of its
provisions shall render the contract or
agreement in respect of which such
violation occurs null and void; and fur
Their provides that any person violat-
ing any of the provisions of the act
shall be punished by a fine of not
more than $1,000, or by Imprisonment
for not more than one year, or by
both such fine and imprisonment.
From this 1t appears that where
there has been a violation of the stat
ute, the whole is deemed to be faint
ed and null and void, and as a feces-
sary consequence no recovery can be
had under 1t. would therefore adj
wise that no portion of the three claims
submitted to this department be paid,
but that the claimant be RENTED to
such legal remedy as he may desire
to invoke.
Il would state that prior to the mat
ter having been referred to this de-
partment by the chairman of the COM
mittee on roads, bridges, parks and
public improvements, the violation of
the law had been called to my atten-
ton, and ! had directed the auditor to
withhold any warrant connected with
any of the demands in question"