New Iberia enterprise and independent observer. (New Iberia, La.) 1902-1944, 1920-12-04
Leon Dreyfus Wins Suit Against
City in Sidewalk Controversy

IN re lhe civil SUIT filed against TIE
City of New Iberia by Attorney Walter
J. Burke on behalf Of his client, Leon
Dreyfus, involving claims against tn,
City for amounts due on sidewalks, H.
Honoe James Simon, handed down his
decision last Thursday in favor of the
plaintiff. This IS the case wherein Mayor
@ealy took the position Mr. Dreyfus was
not complying with the specifications Of
MS agreement and refused to make any
payments for work that had been ex-
scuted. Mr.. Dreyfus appealed to tlc
District Court for redress. The decision.
while quite lengthy is one full Of int
,st and is as follows:
"The suit is predicated upon a contract
rnte-ed into between the plaintiff and de
Sendant for the construction of sidewalks
and curbs in certain portions of the City
Of New Iberia, according to specifications
forming part of the contract
nder the provisions of the contract,
plaintiff proceeded with the work and
completed certain units, for which, it IS
alleged, he is entitled to collect and re-
ceive from the defendant the sum Of
fa28105, less deduction of seven cents
per running foot, being $39970, leaving
a balance due him of $3o0135. For this
II amount he demanded payment from
defendant, bat in vain The defendant
offered to settle the account on an eighty
five per cent. basis for the work so far
and to settle for the balance
on the final completion of the whole
work, which he refused to accept.
Hence followed this suit wherein plain
tiff prays for Judgment for said amount,
the annullment of the contract for non
payment thereof, and the cancellation of
MS bond
Defendant answered by certain adj
missions and denials, and further answer
ng demands the forfeiture and annull-
nent of the contract for alIegel violation
hereof by plaintiff. In reconvention,
alleges that plaintiff is indebted unto Il
n the sum of $12,OO000, arising from
he forfeiture of the bond, furnished By
laintiff, and prays for the reservation
f its rights to proceed against the surrey
4 solido.
On these issues the case went to trial
nd thoroughly contested by both sides.
The evidence, taken as a whole, and
hich strongly preponderates in favor of
lie plaintiff, shows and convinces me be-
ond cavil that no part of the contract
as been violated by the plaintiff; but on
lie contrary has been complied with in
l its parts in the construction of the
fferent completed units in accordance
ith the specifica tions.
No specific violations in the construc- :.
On work were established, except in a
neral way, and such as were testified
were corrected and rectified under the
rection and supervision of Mr. Moss,
qualified inspector appointed by the
ty Engineer to inspect and supervise
e construction of these sidewalks und~,
e contract.
Mr.. Willard attempted to discredit :.
me of the work as not having been done
cording to specifications, but his testi-
'ny is not supported nor borne out by
: facts. To the contrary, he was only
the work for a very short time re-
ICING Mr.. Moss the regular inspector. =
was very exacting in finding errors ;,
the construction work previously az
nplished when be was not concerned
rewith.
The inspector Moss, testified most pos
ely that the work was satisfactory and
eptable and in full accordance with the
tract and specifications. His testi