Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1916-07-11

= l.
pear that some of the substitution
were not accidental, but conscious
and Intentional.
The concrete was not placed il
layers as the specifications re
quired.
To construct the curb and gutter
in layers as required BY the speci
fications would enhance the cost O.
the construction.
The concrete work was not KEEP
covered and moist as by said speci
fications required. IL
This gutter and curb was con
|structed in July and August of 1913
The curb and gutter were MOI
kept covered, nor was it kept moist
Under the evidence it is essentia
to a good job that these require
ments Of the specifications be com
piled with.
A failure to comply with this re-
|quirement enhances the profit OF the
contractor.
The city council gave notice tc
the property owners whose property
would be assessed for these improve.
ments inviting them to file obiec-
lions to the proposed assessment
This plaintiff filed his obiec-
tions.
At the time set for the hearing
of these objections, the plaintiff ap-
peared before the council in person
to urge these objections.
The contractors were in attend
ance at this session of the city coun-
Gil. and when plaintiff arose to
make his objections, as he did sew
eral times, he was interrupted to
such an extent that he was unable
to proceed.
Upon this point a witness testi-
flies:
I was present at the meeting at
the city hall, when Mr.. Atkinson
tried to make his oral objections.
- heard Mr.. Atkinson start
to make his objections. He arose
to make his oral objections, and was
frequently and repeatedly inter-
rupted.. These Interruptions came
from the north side of the room.
My recollections is, from Mr.. lit
terrell, one of the contractors. There
was no attempt made on the part
of the mayor, or council, to quell
the Interruptions to my knowledge.
can't recall the language Of the
Interruptions but it was sort of a
ha! ha! and that was true each time
Mr.. Atkinson tried to speak. My
hest recollection would be that he
tried three or four times. Quite a
large crowd was present. Mr.. At
kinson did not sit down between in
terruptions, he would stop and wait
a minute or two, and then start
again. There was no attempt, as
recall it, to have quiet while he was
offering his objections. The mayor
sat between Mr.. Zitterell and my
self.
Following this the assessments
were approved.
The record shows that thereafter
the contractors presented the mem
hers of the council, the mayor, the
city engineer, the city attorney, and
the inspector with a turkey.
Upon this point, one of the con.
tractors, J. G. Sullivan, testified
Following the completion of the
job, we sent out some turkeys tt
different people at Christmas time
= - = My recollection is that We
sent them out to all the city officers
by my order they were sent to every
member Of the city council. MY
orders were to send one to the may.
or. The city engineer was included
among the list"
During the trial the court in
spected the improvement generally
and the points also where the sam.
pies introduced in evidence were OBJ.
tanned.
Zitterell & Sullivan were the low
est bidders. Plaintiff is a contrac'
tor and was an unsuccessful bidder
The contract called for 6074 lin
ear feet of combined curb and gut
ter, and there were 1856 cubic
yards of pavement. The work wa.
done under inspection of person
appointed for that purpose and wa!
su pervised by the city engineer ant
later accepted by the city council b!
formal resolution. 1t is claimed
by appellant that it is shown tina
the material for the concrete foun
dation and for the mixture was &C
cording to specifications: that afte
a year from the completion of tn,
work and after one season of freeZ
ing and thawing there was no evi
dence of poor material or workman
ship or cracking of the curbing, gut
| hot rnn mo nj