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


dation was not to be of the CONNER
cial character and quality. Quot
ing from the specifications they read
as follows:
Broken stone shall be of approx
ed quality of hard rock with no frag-
ments larger than will pass through
one and three-fourths 1A) inch
ring, and none smaller than will
pass through one-fourth Oh
inch ring in their longest dimen-
sions free from all refuse and for
eign matter and well graded"
The original specifications have
been certified to this court from
which it appears this requirement
was a modification of the standard
specification and required special
kind of crushed rock.
From the testimony of some of the
witnesses it appears that commercial
crushed rock is rock that will pass
through two I'd inch ring and be
caught by a one-eighth Oh inch
ring. Rock of the character required
by the specification would have to be
prepared especially and is more ex-
pensive. 1t is claimed by appellee
that no attempt was made on the
part of the contractors to comply
with this especially prepared speci-
tication, nor was any attempt made
on the part Of the engineer to eX-
act it. OF the crushed rock used,
from fifteen to twenty per cent was
particles that would pass through
a one-fourth 90 inch ring and
from five to ten per cent was too
large to pass through one and
three-fourths inch (1a4) ring. The
plaintiff has had certified some ex-
hibits from the foundation CT this
paving. and it appears as from an
ticles were more than two and half
(21a) inches in their longest di-
mansions. ~
This specification materially af-
fected the contractors bid.
The plaintiff at the close of the
evidence raised the further objec-
ton that the concrete foundation
was not of the thickness required by
the specifications, but was not dis
covered by him until, during the
trial. This amended objection made
at the close of the evidence is, as
follows:
Now, comes the appellant, C. E.
Atkinson, and amends his objections
to the manner in which the. con-
tract was performed on Wilson Ave-
nue., and his objections to the paw
ling thereon, to conform with the
proof and amends the sixth objec-
ton by adding thereto: Division
d, and stating that the concrete
foundation for said pavement was
not of the thickness required by said
specifications and did not comply
with the said specifications in that
1.-THE same was not four inches thick /;
THAT the fact that the same did not
comply with the specifications was
concealed from the plaintiff and not
discovered until after the trial OF
this case; that the evidence shows
the facts under which said founda-
ton was laid, and it conclusively APP
pears that the contractor and the
city officials were guilty of fraud
| in laying or permitting the same to
be laid, and permitting the same to
be covered and reporting the same
as having been laid in compliance
with the plans and specifications.
The foundation was put in and
covered and plaintiff did not discov-
| er the fact of it's thickness until dur
ling the trial the defendant tore up
cross section of the pavement in
front of the plaintiffs house. This
cross section was inspected by the
trial court. Little, if any, of this
Foundation was four inches thick
| and much of it did not exceed d
thickness of two and a half inches.
Slabs taken from this foundation
were introduced upon the trial, iden-
titled and preserved and certified te
this court for inspection.
AS to the curb and gutter 1t ap-
pears that the contract for the curb
and gutter was let at the same time
as the contract for the paving. The
contracts, however, were separate
and the proceedings with reference
Ito the improvement were separate
Separate proposals were made fol
the work. The contract, however
Twas let to the same contractors, Zit-
terrell & Sullivan.
The objections to the curb anc
gutter have been set out. These OBJ
Elections were presented to the city
lcouncil prior to the time the as
lsessment was fixed and confirmed