Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-01-02
|. ]. SMITH & CO. OBTAIN
VERDICT FOR S35,52.4.63
Jury In Hastings Court, Part H., AL.
lows Company Extra Com
pcnSatiOn.
VERDICT MAY BE SET ASIDE
Finding Is Subject to Courts Ruling
on City's Demurrer, Which VIII
BE Argued Before Judge Wells mt
10 O'Clock This Morning.

new Mayo Bridge, were given n verdict
for s35.52i.63 In Hastings Court, Part
| H., yesterday, for extra concrete work
claimed To have been done by the com :
pany In the construction OF the bridge
because of an inaccurate description of
! the bed rock line OF james River I'm the
city Engineers profile. upon which the
bid for building the bridge was based.
The company sued for $4,000
The jury's verdict Is subject to the
opinion of the court on the legal phase
OF the question. This involves the
city's demurrer TO the evidence Intro
duced by the construction company on
the ground that all of 1t Is incompe-
tent. since the contract between the
city and /. J. Smith & Co expressly
designated the City Engineer as the
sole arbitrator in the event that DIFF
ferences should arise between the con-
tracing parties either during or sub
sequent to the completion OF the con-
tract.
JUDGE WELLS TO HEAR
ARGUMENT On DEMURRER
Argument on the city's demurrer will
be heard at 10 o'clock this morning
Judge Wells will allow each side two
hours to present It's case, and will at
the end OF that time either announce
his decision or take the case under
advisement. II the city's demurrer Is
sustained. judgment will be entered for
the defendant and the jury's s35.524. 60
verdict Will be ipso facto set aside.
If, however. the court denies the de :
| murrer. it will enter Judgment
against the city for the full amount OF
the verdict. This Will be approNi-
mately $4,000 less than the amount
for which the company sued. Which
ever way the court rules upon the
city's demurrer. either side will have
the right to appeal to the State SUI
preme Court. II Judge Wells declines
to sustain the demurrer. 1t is regarded
as more than probable that the city
Will note an appeal.
The controversy which was laid be-
| fore the jury yesterday Is OF long
standing. 1t centres about the claim
OF the company that the city. In In
! viting bids for the construction of Mayo
Bridge, prepared profile OF the river
bed which was accepted AZ correct by
the bidders. According to the con-
| struction company, the true bed rock
! o! the river proved to be several feet
below the he'd rock line as shown on
! the city's profile, ncccssitating large
| amount of extra concrete work. In or
| der to comply with tho terms Of the
! contract. which required all piers TO
J rest on bed rock.
ALI.EGE DEFICIENCY
IN CITY,S PROFILE:
| This alleged deficiency in the City
! Engineers profile was made the basis
! of a claim for extra compensation which
| was placed first before the Admins
/ trative Board. After an extended hear
/ ing the board, upon the advice OF tho
! City Engineer. recommended that ]. j.
/ Smith & Co. be allowed $4,000 AZ extra
compensation IN full settlement OF Its
| claim. The company was dissatisfied
! with the award and brought suit in
/ Hastings Court, Part H., for s57 900. The
! Jury yesterday allowed II s3552i.G3
| with interest from December !, 1912.
! In the proceedings before the court
! the city has rested its ease chiefly upon
the terms of the contract itself. This
| instrument, In the section bearing upon
| the bed rock lire Of the river, clearly
| describes the line shown in the city y
profile as approximate and not guaran-
| tecd. The blue print was maGe on
! the assumption that the piers or the
old Mayo Bridge rested on rock. II
developed when they were demolished
| that they did not. Thee city claims.
1t was the business of the company to
verify the city's line before submitting
its bid. Had the Smith Company added
| $5f 900 to its bid, ii would have made
petinS concerns, which bid, presumably,
i with knowledge Of the true condi-
| lions.
| CITY ENGINEER WAS
MADE SOLE; ARBITRATOR
In its argument before Judge Wells,
to-day, the city will demur to the
| evidence introduced by the company
to- show the extent of the extra work
done by 1t, on the ground that the sole
authority TO determine the extent OF he
! extra work, If there was any, Is the
! City Engineer. Mr.. Boiling has already.
! In the proceedings before the Admins
| ira tive Board. expressed his belief that
| the city was not responsible for tie
! companys iscalculation. and that. ac-
cording to the strict letter of the con-
! tract, the company was entitled to no
! extra compensation.
The contract between the city and
/ the construction company names Mr..
! Boiling as sole arbitrator in the event
! of dispute. In bringing suit FOR extra
| compensation, which the sole arbitra-
! tor has failed to recognize, the city
holds the company has ignored the ar
! bitrator's finding.
| The case was argued before the jury
|! Yesterday, for the city of Richmond, by
City Attorney Pollard and Assistant City
iAttorney Anderson. Attorneys NJ. j. Full
| ton and Kirk Mathews appeared for
I the construction company The jury
! rendered u verdict after considering the
case about an hour.