Bridgeton pioneer., 1915-06-10

The case of Cramp e Co. was furth-
er outlined by the lawyers. There
were several contentious.
The defense of the sub-contractor
is, first, that there was a departure
from the terms of the contract, with
out the knowledge or consent of the
said sub-contractors, and the work
was so changed; the plans and specif-
cations were changed from the orig
| inal
Second, that the liability does not
exceed the amount of the bond, which
is $4,000.
Third, that the changing of the
plans and specifications do not come
under the terms of the contract.
! Fourth, counter claim of $4,000 is
held against Cramp & Co. for other
work done by the defendants.
Mr.. Rose was the lawyer for Dough-
ty & Motley, and Messrs. Hayes &
! Smathers appeared for the Indemnity
Co.
/ After the jury was sworn the suit
of Reuben Osterneck against Douglas
j. Robinson, of Cape May, was taken
up by the same jury. 1t was a claim
for $193.69, including interest and was
not contested. The court directed the
jury to return verdict Of this amount
which was done, after the claim had
been proven. Mr.. Osterneck was rep
resented by James S. Ware.
/ The same jury then resumed the
Cramp & Co. case. The proceedings
in this case, so far had proceeded no
| further than wrangles between the
lawyers as to the sums claimed and
counter claims.
The case was more matter of law
than of fact, and the court at noon
took a recess until 1.30 to confer upon
submitting the matter to the court
without the jury.
When court reassembled in the af-
| ternoon Judge Carrow announced that
counsel had agreed that a jury should
be withdrawn and the case tried by
the court without jury.
The jury was withdrawn and then
all the jurors were excused for the
day. .,.
Judge Carrow asked counsel how
long would be required to try the case
and Mr.. Bacon said it could not pos
sibly be tried in less than two days.
The Judge set June 21st and 3d.
and it was finally agreed that it should
be tried in Atlantic City at that time,
and court adjourned for the day.
A summary of the case is this: The
contractors for building the new Ro-
tel Traymore at Atlantic City, Cramp
& Co., sub-let the contract for the ex-
cavating to Dougherty & Motley, of
that city. Dougherty & Motley gave
indemnity security to Cramp G Co. in
the sum of $4,000 for the performance
of the work. Globe Indemnity Com
pany becoming the security.
The sub-contractors failed in the
execution of the work and the Cramp
Company brings suit to recover the
sum of $19,212.44.
1t was admitted by the plaintiffs
side that the Globe Indemnity Com
pany was not liable for more than the
amount of their indemnifying bond
$4,000, consequently, Dougherty & Not
ley are sued to recover from them the
balance claimed in excess of the
$4,000, less sundry claims of the de-
/ PENDANTS, which were admitted.
Wednesday Morning
"Is No. IL moved?"
| Eyes, sir
| Call jury"
! Were the query and answer between
Judge Carrow and counsel the moment
Court opened this morning.
This is the case of Edward o. Davis
against Roy Whilden, Administrator.
A jury was empanelled. The law
yers for the plaintiff are Joseph H.
Powell and Walter H. Bacon; for the
defendant ]. Hampton Fithian ap-
peared.
Mr.. Bacon opened the case by stat
fing that this suit is brought to recover.
a store bill owed by Capt Whilden,
who was accidently drowned about two
years ago. The bill amoutns to $S34.74