Evening journal., 1922-11-29

plant and he expressed his desire
that Mr.. Maier, Inspect II.
DR.. Frantz said that he would not
testify that Mr.. Mailer was under the
influence OF liquor at the time OF the
conversation nor that he had been
drinking but that there was a per-
ceptible odor OF liquor about him.
1T might have been on his clothes"
the doctor suggested.
The defendant stated that he
never made any offers OF money 10
any member OF Counsll or the Board
OF Health 20 recommend the Davis
garbage burning plant; that he never
held any conversation wl-h HOOK
concerning the agreement between
Hook and his son until after his son
had told him OF the signed paper.
Under REORGANIZATION by
Deputy Attorney-General sonthor-
land. DR.. Frantz sad that ne was'to
get nothing out OF the ciy's purchase
OF the Davs plant. He sad that he
had no business arrangement with
Hook, explaining that that was en-
tirely his sons affair.
DR.. Frantz repeated. in answer 20
Mr.. Southerland's question. that he
did not consider Mr.. Maier to have
been under the influence OF liquor.
and denied that he had made any
reference 20 Mr.. Maier concerning
$500 or that he had asked Mr.. Nraier
to vote for the purchase OF the Davis
plant.
Howard Frantz followed his faith
er on the witness stand. He said
that he was secretary OF the Board
OF Health for a period OF two years
commencing May. 1920.
He told the court that ne sent
letter 10 Hook IN November 1921,
asking him 20 submit a bid for san
incinerator. Hook. he said. came
TO Wilmington in response 20 the let
ter. He said that Hook wanted 10
see the Nye plant in use az that time
and requested him 20 accompany him
to the site. which. Howard stated. he
did. After the inspection. Hook
left for Me- York with the under
standing that he was 20 send his esti-
mate 20 the Board OF Health, the
witness said.
Howard testified that Hook sub
mitted his prices 20 Dr. Handy, the
president OF the Board, on Novem-
Der %. The estimate for 76-ton
plant was $4,000. Howard said.
Hook. he stated, afterwNrd reduced
this price 20 $4,000.
Hook, Howard related, asked as
sistance 20 land" the contract for
the Davis ,ncinerator. He stated
that the incinerator representative
offered him a ten per cent. commits
sion on the purchase pr,os OF the
plant II accepted by the city. This
sum. the defendant said. was 20 In
cluds commissions on any contracts
that he should obtain from other
cities for the Davis Company. ii
was Hook who specified the ten per
cent. according 20 Howard. The /
witness said that Hook was crazy
10 get the Wilmington contract.
Howard testified that nothing was i
said between him and Hook con-
cernlng any improper influence and |
that he never offered directly or In /
d d.rectly any money TO any member
Of the Health Board or Council to /
vote for the awarding of the IN
rtnerator contract TO the Davis Conf
pany. "I really didn't do much
about It at ALL" he said. but did state
that he had spoken TO some mem
bers about the merits OF the plant.
Denial was made by Howard that /
he drew up the agreement signed by |
Hook and that the paper was signed |
by Hook in his automobile on a SIDE |
street OF the city. Howard said that
the agreement, already signed by
Hook. accompanied a letter that he
received from Hook from New York
about December 3.
Howard testified that he had re-
ferred Hook - Allentown. Pa, Law
renee Mass. Paterson, y. j.. and
Duluth. Mimi, as prospective pus-
chasers OF incinerators Much cor
respondence concerning this matter
passed between him and Hook. the
witness stated.
Mr.. Harman handed Howard the |
copy OF a letter. produced earlier in |
the trial by the State, which Hook
claimed 20 havo sent 20 Howard re-
pudiating the agreement after
Hooks father and grandfather had
4 aclared their refusal TO allow en-
trance into such an agreement
Howard asserted that ne had never
received the original OF the letter.
At this point the court adjourned
until $50 o'clock this morning.