Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-04-11
WRIT REFUSED
IN BROAD STREET
PAVING AWARD
Declares Points Raised We're
Minor and Without Effect
on Contract.
WORK HAS BEEN GOING
= ON DESPITE APPLICATION
Action Brought by Joshua
Briefly in Fight Against
Wood Block.

The writ of certiorari applied for
by Joshua Briefly to review the
award of the Broad street wood block
paving contract was refused by Chief
Justice William S. Gummere in the
Supreme Court today Argument on
the application was heard before the
justice last Saturday, at which time
he reserved his decision.
In announcing his decision the
chief justice referred to many too
hypereritical" points raised by the
experts ON which it was sought to
snvalidate the contract. Most of
these points were of minor import
ance, he said, and had no effect
whatever on the contract.
f The clause in the contract which
reserves TO the Board of Works the
right to make alterations in the speci-
fcations after the signing of the con-
tract was upheld by the court. This
was the principal point on which the
applicant based his plea for the writ.
Algernon 7. Sweeney, his counsel,
contended that such a clause invali-
dated the whole contract because 1t
could be used to shut off competition
by allowing q contractor to underbid
others, knowing that the board would
cut out some of the specifications
later.
81 was Inclined to take this view
At first," the chief justice said, land
g-thanK if Interpreted in broad sense
It vitiated the whole contract. APP
parently the Board of Works could,
after awarding the contract, change
from wood block to granite or btu
lithlc in the specifications of material.
81 think it is quite clear, how
sver, that the fundamental contract
rights of contractor cannot be over
thrown by this clause The city Is
required by law to have the award
open to competition, and II is absurd
TO say that this clause can reserve to
the city the power to do what the
law prohibits, SO that both the con-
tractor and the city are bound by the
statutes despite what Interpretation
might be put on the provision"
The chief justice asserted that he
does not find for a fact that specific
cations in regard to the oil to be
used made the contract uncertain or
performance, as was contended by
the applicant. He also declared that
the presence of a patented ingredient
af the oil that is used on the bloeks
does not make the pavement a pat
ented one, any more than the attach
n1e1lt OF q patented shock apsorDer
10 an automobile would make the
automobile patented.
The fact that FIVE or six contractors
were willing to bind themselves to
perform the work according to con-
tract and bid accordingly was proof
enough, in the Chief Justices opinion,
that the specifications were not un-
reasonable and incapable of perform
ance. The requirements, he said. were
not impossible of fulfillment, accord
fYig to the affidavits of experts.
The further ground urged that the
charter of the city of Newark pro-
hibited the laying of patented pave
nnent without the consent of the own
ers of majority of the frontage along
the street, and that the consent had
not been obtained in the present case
was disposed of by the chief justice
by referring to his declaration that
the pavement was not patented one.
The preliminary work in connection
with the paving has been going on
FOR the past two weeks, despite the
application for the writ No stay or
Injunction was taken out to stop it.