Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1922-01-18

and the majority members over the
legality of the contracts, and the whole
affair had become an issue in the school
board campaign last fall
Later Snider &, Rotz were re-employed
to act as engineers temporarily, ana
this arrangement is still in effect.
The suit, which is filed in the name
of the school city, was prepared by Mr..
Lesh. on certifcation Of Governor War
rem T. McCray of the findings Of the
State board Of accounts in the matter.
incidentally, the findings of the State
board Of accounts were based almost
%holly on reports Of Walter J. Twiname,
rield examiner of the board, who, it is
generally believed will be elected to sue
coed Ralph W. Douglass as business di
rector for the board of school commits
sioners at its special meeting tonight.
COMPLAINT IN
-FOUR PARAGRAPHS.
The complaint is in four paragraphs.
In brief, the first paragraph charges
that the firm Of Snider & Rotz, under its
contract as engineers, performed duties
which, according to law, should have been
performed by the superintendent Of
buildings and grounds of the school
board For these services the firm re
ceived IS, 615.76
Judgment Of $4,000 is asked in this
count
The second paragraph charges S18,-
1884 was paid illegally to L. A. Snider
as building advisor. He was not entitled
to this amount, it is alleged, because Of
conflict of interests arising between
Snider as an employe Of the board in
the capacity of building advisor, and
Snider as a member of the firm Of Snider
& Rotz. Damages of $4,000 are asked
IN the third paragraph 1t is alleged
the Snider & Rotz contract became in
valid on the signing Of the Snider con
tract, March 2, 1920, because this con
tract permitted Snider to pass upon and
approve for payment bills of Snider &
Rotz, thus creating a conflict of interest.
1t is stated S37 1851 was paid Illegally
to Snider & Rotz in this manner. Judg-
ment Of $4,000 is asked.
REPAYMENT
Is DEMANDED.
Repayment of 81, 451 alleged to have
been paid Snider & Rotz for the prepare
ton of unsatisfactory plans for the first
unit of Arsenal Technical High School,
is asked IN the fourth and last count.
1t is stated the plans in question were
discarded and the unit built according
to other plans?
In the first para graph OF the com
plant in referring to Sn1der & Rotz con-
tract it is stated:
THAT said contract attempted to i'm
pose upon defendant the duties which by
statute are imposed upon the superin
tendent Of building and grounds. towlt:
supervision Of all heating, ventilation,
plumbing and drainage of all school
buildings, either in use or course OF cree
tion or to be hereafter erected. That
said contract on account of the fact that
1t imposed the legal duties of the super
intendent of buildings and grounds upon
the defendants was ultra vtrls, illegal and
'That these defendants have been paid
for said services rendered pursuant to
the provisions Of said ILLEGAL an and yoIidi
thousand six hundred fifteen and 76-l0O
dollars which sums they still retain for
their own use.
ALLEGES FIRM
REFUSED PAYMENT.
THAT the plaintiff before the com.
mencement Of this action demanded Of
the defendants the repayment and re-
turn of said sum received by them by
virtue of said contract which defendants
have refused. and have not either before
or since said demand paid the same or
any part thereof
"That said amount paid to the de-
N9endants as aforesaid amounting 10
(S,615.76), eight. thousand SIX hundred
fifteen and 76-100 dollars is now due and
unpaid"
The second paragraph goes into the
matter of the dual relationship Of Snider
es advisor for the board and as a mem~
Der Of the firm Of Snider & ROtz. After
setting out the board had under way
building program to cost about 100000
and reciting the text of the contracts the
complaint says:
THAT the construction work mentioned
in the contract Of March ,. 1920 which
under the provisions thereof defendant
Snider obligated himself tn advise the
school commissioners as to the necessity
and need Of is part Of the same work
which defendant Snider, as a member OF
the partnership Of Snider & Rotz. re-
ceived compensation for under the terms
Of the contract Cf Feb q, 1919.
THAT the firm 3f Snider & Rotz, on