Newark evening star and Newark advertiser., 1914-12-31
RULE FAILS TO
| HOLD UP MONEY
FOR CONTRACTOR
Taxpayers Counsel Writ lnop-
erative, as $25, 900 Is Al
ready Paid Over.

A rule to show cause why a writ of
eertiorari should not issue for a re-
view of the proceedings Of the Com
mon Council Monday night in direct
ing the payment of over $4,000 20
the Essex Construction Company, has
been obtained by Franklin w. Fort,
OF Fort q Fort, as counsel to a num-
Der of taxpayers, The rule was signed
by Chief Justice Gummere yesterday
afternoon and is returnab,e before
him next Monday. The rule acted as
8 stay, restraining the city treasurer
from issuing a warrant for the money
pending a decision in the matter.
The stay was ineffective, however,
for 1t was discovered by Mr.. Fort tha,
the money had already been paid to
the construction company before he
had an opportunity TO serve the man.
date of the court. This fact will
necessitate the bringing OF other
proceedings, and papers In the new
case viii be served on City Counsel
Hugent today
MIR. Fort is bringing the two pro-
reedings for the restoration to the
city treasury of the moneys paid, as
she legal representative of John L.
Armitage and a number of other
citizens Mr. Armitage and his asso-
eiates instituted fight in the courts
that resulted in the determination
that the contract for the proposed
Centre Market had been given
Illegally
Neither Mr.. Fort nor Mr. Armitage
would discuss the matter today. but
Il is known that they will contend
that such services as were rendered
by the construction company did not
warrant the payment of anything
ike s25, 900, and that as a matter of
law the company was not entitled to
any money at al.
Letter to Mayor.
The claims of Mr.. Armitage and
the other citizens are set forth in the
following letter, received by Mayor
6aussling this morning:
Representing John L. Armitage, q
citizen and taxpayer of this city, and
other citizens, we desire to formally
protest against any approval by you
Of certain resolution, being No. 1S1,
passed at a meeting of the Common
Council, held December 2S, 1914, di-
recting the payment to the Essex
Construct on Company, Incorporated,
OF the sum Of $25,36415.
"While the brief time since the
passage of this wholly unexpected
resolution has not permitted an ex-
tended examination of the law, we
desire to call your honors attention
to the fact that the contract, under
which certain parts of the work for
which payment is claimed, was done
and certain of the material furnished,
has been set aside by the Supreme
Court. Any payment made for work
done or materials furnished there
under, in our judgment, would be
clearly within the scope of section
1859 of the crimes act, being chapter
2S5 OF the laws of 1898.
I'VE would also ask that your
honor carefully inquire as to what
authority exists permitting the city
TO reimburse the contractor, whose
contract has been set aside In the
courts, for his expenses in securing a
bond.
I'VE presume that the language at
the bottom of the bill annexed to the
resolution, %. K. Hooper & Co, per
Z. B. H. may be assumed to be an
approval by the architects Of an es-
innate. II so, we would call your
honor's attention TO Section 10 of
Chapter 151 of the laws of 1878
IF the payment covered by the
resolution is claimed by virtue OF any
contract. other than that of the above
we would respectfully call
your attention to Chapter 342 of the
laws of 1912, and in that connection
would again call attention to the alb
sence Of any provision authorizing
payment by the city for the contrac-
tors bond.
I'VE assume that even If your honor
feels that the resolution Is the proper
one for your signature you will, since
the question as to the validity of the
has been raised, notify us
of the signing of the resolution a few
hours at least before lodging 1t with
the city clerk or auditor. so that we
may have an opportunity to test the
OF the resolution before the
warrant is issued by the city officials
with that duty. Four or five
hours notice will probably be suffl. |
cient."