The Bismarck tribune., 1922-05-02
RECORD DISPUTE MARKS
HEARING IN WATER CASE

HEARING IN WATER CASE
Continued from Page u
additions made to capital account,
etc.
Refers to Valuations.
MIR. Hunt yesterday afternoon refer
red to his exhibits as to the valua-
tion of the property. He said his val.
uation began with the valuation OF
city engineer as of Jan. l, 1908. He
presented number OF papers con-
tanning figures. His figures represent
ed totals for each year.
He said his statement was taken
from the books Of the company. A
large part of his testimony was tech
nical. He said that there was great
discrepancy between the testimony of
the company's witnesses in the previ-
Gus case and as the cost is actually
shown by the companies books, Mr..
Hunt was asked by Mr.. O'Hare to
point out this with references to the
testimony of Mr.. Murphy. Chairman
Milhollan interrupted saying that
where records were plain the commits
sion did not want to drag out the hear
ing. Mr.. O'Hare said there was spe:
citic matter.
lMr. Hunt said that the records
showed that payrolls on the construc-
tion of the reservoirs in 1906 were
much smaller than the amounts re-
ferred to by MIR. Murphy. Mr.. Muir
ply, in the previous case, he said, esti-
mated the cost at $130,00O.
He said that he believed there was
no further need for comparison if the
commission compared the testimony
and actual records. Asked by MIR.
Stutsman why his record of the de-
tailed cost Of the company property
did not extend bsyonl 1912, he said
there was not the difference in the fig
ures beyond this period.
He said the total of net revenue for
the year ending March 81, 1922, was
$39,O1614. There was slight delay
bcause of mistake in the tipping
of Mr.. Hunts exhibit. The net rev..
enue was the amount left for taxes,
depreciation, dividends, etc., he said.
Mr. O'Hare offered the various ex.
hibits of Mr. Hunt and Mr.. Morgan OBJ
jected. The objection was overruled.
N Cross Examination.
Mr.. Morgan then took the witness and
inquired as to his qualifications. Mr..
Hunt said he was an accountant but
not a chartered public accountant. He
detailed various positions, including
a position for one year as head OF the
utility division of Bishop, Brissman &
Co. Mr.. Conan referred to Mr.. Hunts
employment by the city Of 'St. Paul
and his analysis of a report Mr.
Bemis made. iMr. Hunt admitted he
disagreed with Mr.. ,Bemis and the city
council accepted Mr.. Bemis' report,
butesaid Mr.. Bemis admitted later he
was wrong.
Mr.. Hunt said he worked on the
company's books, taking extracts from
the company's books in the office in
Bismarck. He said he had been en-
ployed on and off for three weeks.
He was aked if he had seen re-
port of firm of accountants concern
ing books, of the water company, say
ing that the earlier records had been
damaged by water and We're not de-
cipherable, and that the only record
was rough cash record. He said he
had and he disagreed with the report,
saying the records appeared complete
and accurately kept.
Mr. Hunt said that he did not con-
cur with the accountants statement
that the records from 1908 to 1909
were incomplete and there was not a
statement by which the costs could be
arrived at Ss
Says He Found Records.
Mr.. Hunt said that he found the rec
0rds of the company for the period OF
1903 to 1912 were found not in regu-
lar vault but in far corner Of an
old vault. He declared it took dipl0-,
macy to get the books.
MIR. Morgan declared that any state
ment to the effect that the water COM
pany did not give Mr.. Hunt free ac-
cess to the records was not true. He
said that Mr.. Hunt had been turned
loose" in the office. Mr. Zuger said
he would back up this statement.
Mr.. Hunt was questioned as to the
purchase of the water company in
1898 by the Bismarck Water Supply
Co. He said that part of the pur-
chase price was assumption OF llaDll-
tiles of the old company. He was ask
ed concerning issuance of 100000 Of
bonds. He fixed the time at shortly
after Alexander Mckenzie became
head of the company.
On cross questioning Mr.. Hunt said
an appraisal contained in the report
of the accountants was the same as
seen in the company records. He
said that records he had seen indicated
the appraisal was made by someone
connected with the company.
Valuation Of Property.
The exhibits of Mr.. Hunt which
were presented by him gave the actual
investment of the water company at
s25O,672.72 on March 1, 1922, and
present value at $21S, ,596.92. He said
his figures were arrived at by taking
figures of City Engineer Atkinson
prior to 1903 and figures from the COM
pany's books after that time His
figures stated the companies earnings
for the year 1921 was 11.7 per cent,
and for six months. 1922 134 nor cent