The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-03-26
Bungling of City Gives
 Tompkins Big Verdict
lcon-inued From PaEa One.l

(Concinued From Page One.) from the premises. They then brought suit for $20O,000 damages.
 The city claimed the contractors were not building the bridge accord ing to the terms of the contract and were delaying the work. to such an extent that the city was justified in breaking the contract The Tomp- kins corporation says the delays werG caused by the city, whose consult ing engineer made so many changes in the specifications that it was i'm possible for Ehe company to finish the bridge by September 1, 1917.
 In summing up the case Judge HaiueS says:
 Tn general the conclusion of the court is that none of the citys prin- cipaI claims are established by that would justify the court in holding the plaintfff responsible for the serious delay on this work, justifying the an uuIment of the contract.
 For these reasons and more par icularly because the court is con- vinced that the defendant must bear the responsibility for months of delay upon the piers, the judgment must 1 be for the plaintiff.
 ! A consideration of the question as to the time limited for this work leads to the same conclusion. The defen- dart annulled the contract because the work could not be finished by i September | 1917. The contract i provides that if the contract is delay i ed by my cause for which the city 1 is responsible, the time stated in the agreement for the completion of the 1 work shall be extended for a. period | equal to the time lost by reason ot 1 any and all such causes.
 1 From the conclusions which the ] court reaches in regard to responsi- i biIity for the delay on the piers, il ! follows that the time for the comple- ! ton of the contract was automatically 1 carried beyond Sept. 1, 1917, ever ] though the contra ctors did not pro- | cure a ruling by the consulting en- 1 gtneer as to how long that extension of time should be. While it remain l ed undetermined, the extension never. | theless became operative under the terms of the specifications, ever though the limit was not fixed The defendant was not in a position to le
 gally annuI the contract on August 20 1917.
 On the East Washington avenue bridge contract the court finds tha the city prohibited the Tompkins Cor poration from continuing with the
 work and never gave permission fo work to be resumed. Damages O
 S31, ,98S.11 are therefore awarded fol
 loss of profits the contractors wouIc
 have made.
 City Attorney William H. ComIe
 said today: '1The city had paid Tomp
 kins $40, 900 approximately l do no , know whether I shall take an appeal until I have had an opportunity t
 read the opinion.''
 The Grand Street Bridge was le
 at a contract price of $211.o00 ToInpkins worked on the bridge fo
 8 time and was dismissed. Up t
 the present time the bridge has cost
 cash paid out, about s355.o0O
 bond issue for $2o0.O 900 is asked fo
 to pay for its completion.
 The total cash cost of the bridg : will be about s555. 900. The city au
 Jhorities believed they would collec $130,OOO from the bond of Tornp
 kins But since the city must pa Tompkins S191,o00 the cost of tn
 bridge promises to be much in exces
 Of $7O0,0OO.