The Mount Holly news., 1917-01-09
Co,,rt Affairs

Court Affairs.
Judge Carrow held court on Thurs
day and took up the case of Patrick A.
Hennessy against the county of Bur
lington. The plaintiff is contractor
: living at Belvidere. His grievance
was the loss of profit by not being able
to finish building bridges at Burling.
ton. This subject has been the theme
for discussion at meetings of the
Board of FreehoIders for long time.
Hennessy was given the contracts to
build the Pearl street and Broad street
bridges at Burlington about four years
ago. After the contracts were signed
the contractor got his machinery and
material on the ground and began
work on the Pearl street bridge. He
found there was considerable quick
sand and that he would have to put in
pilings to make foundation for the
bridge. Hennessy declared there was
not anything in the specifications that
required him to put in the pilings and
he refused to do this part of the work
unless he was assured of being compen-
sated for the extra expense.
The matter dragged through the old
Board and the small Board and the de-
cision was that the contractor was OBJ
liged to go ahead. A clause in the
specifications provided that the con-
tractor was to furnish completed
bridge and that omissions or errors in
the specifications were not to be taken
advantage of. 1t was shown, however,
that there was consultation over the
matter and that foundations might be
put up by consent of the county engi-
neer, which was never given. Evident
ly tired of waiting for a decision Hen
messy sold all of the material he had
at the bridges to another contractor.
This was taken by the Board of Free
holders to mean that he had abandon
ed the work and it was decided to re-
advertise for bids and have the bridges
built. Hennessy claimed that his
profits on the work would have
amounted to 5000 and he sued to re-
cover that amount on the ground that
the Freeholders had never given him
the assurance that they would pay
him for the extra expense incurred in
driving the piling and that he was
ready to go ahead with the work at all
times.
The defence was that the contracts
were broken when Hennessy refused to
go on with the work and sold his
material, thereby showing that he did
not intend to finish the bridges.
Nothing codld be recovered on the
bond he gave for the faithful perform
ance of the work as the bonding
company failed. 1t was contended
that he had never asked for extra paw.
The county engineer had decided that
it was the duty of Hennessy to finish
the work under the terms ef the con-
tract which provided that substantial
bridge, fully completed, should be
handed to the county. In selling his
material and not putting in an objec-
ton to the reletting of the bids Hen
Messy practically acquiesced in the
abandonment of the first contract.
James Mercer Davis represented the |
county and he asked for q nonsuit |
after the contractor, who was the first |
and only witness for the plaintiff, had |
given his testimony. Mr.. Davis held |
that there had not been ANYTHING /
shown to put the county in shape to |
pay imaginative profits. The contract |
had been abandoned.
Peter Backes, of Trenton, and V.
Claude Palmer, Of Mount Holly, were |
counsel for Hennessy, and they object
ed to nonsuit on the ground that the
county had never shown anv incIina-
tion to do what was absolutely necessa-
ry-to put in piling, which it was
was entirely up to the county.
The motion to nonsuit was denied
for the present and Judge Carrow said |
he would hear testimony on the other
side and the motion might be renewed |
later.
A young man by the name of Smith
was called. He was the contractor who
finished the Pearl street bridge. He
was asked to give estimates on cost of |
building and as it would take some
time to compute this he was allowed to
go home and do the work.
DIR. Hugh Lejambre testified that he
was member of the small Board of
Freeholders and that Mr.. Hennessy
had been asked to complete his work
but that he had positively refused to 90
ahead. This concluded the testimony
for the day and the case went over
until yesterday.
In Judge Lippincott's court John
Hertell, of Lumberton, was tried on
the charge of having stolen moneyl
from Charles Livendall, of Jobstown,
but there was not any testimony to
show that the charge could be sustain
ed and he was released.
Yesterday Judge Carrow resumed
the hearing of the case of Patrick A.
Hennesey against the county of Bur
lingron. Witnesses were heard for the
defence to sustain the claim that the
contractor had abandoned his job.
At the conclusion of the testimony
and just as argument was about to be-
gin, Mr.. Davis put in a special plea,
500 per day ''liquidated dam
ages" for neglect to complete the Pearl
street bridge. The court instructed
the jury to render verdict on that
motion, The amount was $4,000,
from which was deducted $500,
which the plaintiff was actually |
suing for, and the verdict, as
recorded, instead of giving the plain
tiff anything, brought him in debt to
-. A.. -
case will be carried to higher court.
Judge Lippincott sat yesterday after
noon to superintend the drawing of 66
names from the general panel, those
who are selected to be subject to call
for the murder trial next Monday