The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-10-18
PAVING INJUNCTION
CASE FULLY ARGUED
Judge Crump Will Announce His
Decision on Thursday
Morning.
MAY REPLY TO AEFlpAvirs
Question Hinges on Proper Exercise
of Its Discretionary Powers by Adj
ininistrativc Boarti-Intcrest OF G.
Isidgcway Moore Only Nominal.

Argument in tho injunction proceed
ings brought by g. hidRway Moore.
taxpayer and citizen. TO restrain the
Administrative Board from carrying
INTO effect its contract with the Central
Construction and Supply Company for
the laying of 10000 square yards of
smooth paving. was finished early last
hight in the Law and Equity Court. and
Judge Crump announced that he would
pass on the question Thursday morning
at 10 o'clock. Meanwhile the plaintin
may file counter atfidavits by Tuesday
morning at 10 o'clock, and the defend
ants in the proceedings have until
"Wednesday morning ut 10 o'clock to file
their answering papers. Members of
the Administrative Board, Interested
contractors, agents OF various compel
ing companies. several citizens and Il
large coterie of lawyers were in court
to listen to the arguments.
QUESTION HINGES ON
DISCRETIONARY POWERS
The question hinged on the disputed
point as to whether the board had not
gone beyond the discretionary powers
vested In it by the city charter. 1t
was admitted that under statute and
under the common law, discretionary
powers are vested in the board, but the
plaintiffs averred and charged that the
board had exceeded it's proper authori-
" and had arbitrarily and without
sound reason or just cause, awarded a
contract calling for an expenditure of
S125.000 when II could have materially
reduced the outlay by awarding the
contract to the bidder who had not only
given Il lower price and complied with
ALI the plans and specifications on it's
own peculiar asphaltic cement, which 1t
considered better, but had gone furth-
err In giving q lower price on the as
Ehaltic cement which the board finally
selected. All the lttOrnpVS for tho
plaintiffs charged that the board had
exhibited n Partially which It's mem
bcrs had not properly been able to eX-
plain and which would wiring from the
taxpayers an amount far above the nc
tual cost
RESERVED RIGHT TO
REJECT ANY OR ALL BIDS
In reply the attorneys for tho de-
PENDANTS declared that the board ex-
crciscd only Its legal discretionary pow
ers In making the award and that the
city charter expressly stated that it
could reject any or all bids as 1t saw
nit, and further, they denied that any
asphalt which came up to the require
ments would be equally satisfactory. In
their affidavit II was stated by the re-
spondents to the proceedings that 1t
was understood that the board would
consider the relative quality and merits
OF the different classes and kinds of
pdNiuS tI' I13ttTlalS entering intc the
construction. The Central Construc-
ton and Supply Company further
stated that it could do the work in lI5
days. whereas 1t would take the At
lanits Bitulithic Company, the lower
bidder, 800 days in which to complete
the paving. 1t is not unusual, the for
.Iner company states, for contracts to be
awarded because of the shorter length
of time in which the work can be COM
pleted, and ii adheres to it's original
claim that Bermudez asphaltic cement
is better than the Aztec, which is the
peculiar brand of the rival company.
RiDGEyYAY MoORE'S INTEREST,"
is PURELY NOMINAL.
In tho denial and demurrer Of the
( Central Construction and Supply Com
pany, ii is charged that G.. Ridgeway
Moore, appearing as plaintiff, has no
interest. rs entitled to him In law, to
any standing in court upon the case
made by him. According TO the rec
ords Of the city" the paper goes on;
the said G. Ridgeway Moore pays n
total tax. including his license fee as
lawyer, of S23i.95. and the respondent
AYERS. upon information and belief, that
the annual revenues OF the city of
Richmond amount to $3.50O000. from