Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-01-13
ARCHITECTS SUIT
BRANDED AS UNFAIR
Director Evans Makes State
ment Defending Attitude of
FreehoIders.

made In the public prints regarding
the suit of Hurd & Sutton, architects,
against the Board of Freeholders.
The suit for SO $50 for architects fees
was originally decided against the
now to be carried to the Court of Err
rors and Appeals.
Mr.. Evans today made the follow
ing statement over his SIGNATURE
80 much publicity has been given
to the garbled and misleading state
| ments which have been made by GER
| tain interested persons in connection
with the suit brought by Hurd & SUIT
| ton against the Board of Freeholders
of Essex county, that / deem it only
| fair that the public should have all
the facts in connection with this
| matter.
For a number of years prior to
January /, 1912, Hurd & Sutton had
practically monopoly of the archi-
| tectural work for the county of Es-
| sex. During the period from Septem-
| Der, 1905. to September, 1911, former
| Boards of Freeholders contracted with
Hurd & Sutton for work for which
the county has paid them the sum of
| $152, 5000 in commissions. They even
obtained a commission on the fur
| illSiilitSS db tllo ILSSC4 1Ounby IIOS-
pital at Soho.
After the people of Essex county
| had voted to do away with the. large
board and establish the small Board
| of Freeholders, and before the old
board went out of Office, 1t authorized
| Hurd & Sutton to draw plans and
specifications for hospital for mixed
| infections at Soho. This hospital was
never built, for the very good reason
that the Board of F'reeholders were
| limited by law in the amount which
| they could expend for the Soho hos
pital and the board had at the time
| of the ordering of these plans used up
| the entire amount authorized by law,
with the exception of approximately
| $4,000. Hurd & Sutton prepared the
plans and specifications for hospital
| for mixed infections to cost $l5O,0OO,
and knew at the time that the Board
of Freeholders had no authority under
| the law to expend the amount which
| would be required to erect this hos
pital. In fact, when the matter was
| brought to the attention of one of the
members of that firm before the plans
were accepted by the Board of Free
holders. he said he knew that the
board did not have the authority to
raise the amount necessary to build
| the hospital but he was willing TO
take chance on subsequent legisla-
ton. No subsequent legislation was
ever obtained.
Refuse to Pay Bill.
1.-THE payment of their bill was re-
ferred to the legal department of the
county of Essex after the small board
took office on January 1, 1912, and the
Board of Freeholders, acting under
the advice eff that department, re-
fused the payment of this bill on the
ground that the contract for the
drawing of the plans and specif1ca-
lions was void under the decisions
of our highest court. Hurd d sutton
brought suit; the case was tried and
the Circuit Court judge held that
while 1t was true that the board did
not have sufficient authority under
the law to pay for the erection and
completion of this hospital for mixed
infections, and that under the deci-
sions of the Court of Errors and APP
peals the Board of Freeholders had
no power or authority to erect the
hospital in accordance with the plans
and specifications prepared by Huro
& Sutton, nevertheless, because OF
the fact that these plans and specifi-
cations were prepared so that DIGS
could be submitted on separate sec
tions Aof the hospital and 1t beng
shown that one of the sections OF
said hospital could have been erected
for approximately $4,000, which
amount was still at the disposal OF
the freeholders, the contract for the
drawing of the plans and speclhca-
lions for the entire hospital was a
valid contract and that the county
should pay the architects fees based
upon the full estimated cost of said
hospital, to wit s150,000.
1T may be that the Court OF Errors
and Appeals will sustain TINS decl-
sion, but until it does the Board of
Freeholders would, in my opinion, be
derelict in their duty to the taxpay-
ers of Essex county il they paid the
amount of this BILL
Dangerous Precedent.
1.-THE decision of the lower court, if
allowed to stand, would establish
dangerous precedent and would make
it possible for municipalities having
authority to expend only a limited
amount (for example $50,o0O) in the
erection of a building, to order plans
and specifications drawn for build
ing costing many times that amount,
and IL the building was designed so
that any separable portion could be
constructed for $4,000, whether the
building or such portion was con
SLTuCteQ UT luc IluiiiSiPoiAtS
would be compelled to pay the archi-
tects' fees upon the total estimated
cost of the building whether that es-
timated cost amounted to s150,000 or
81 100000.
The county of Essex has not re-
ceived one dollar of benefit from the
plans and specifications for which
Hurd & Sutton have brought suit for
81, $50. No portion of that hospital
has been erected and the plans and
specifications were never even de-
livered to the Board of Freehelders
after they were approved, but always
remained in the possession of Hurd
& Sutton.
1.-THE appeal has been taken and a
bond has been given which amply
secures Hurd & Sutton in the event
hat the Court of Errors and Appeals
affirms the decision of the court be-
low, and the entire matter will be
disposed of within the next few
months. Therefore the attempt on
the part of certain gentlemen In the
interest of Hurd & Sutton, to insinu-
ate that the Board of Freeholders
have been unfair to Hurd & Sutton
comes with very poor grace from a
firm that has drawn more than $142,-
900 out of the county treasury by
way of architects fees alone cover