The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1923-11-09
EXTRA DITCH WORK
START OF DISPUTE
Contractor Barr, Property
Owners At War
OFFERS TO SETTLE
After Some Argument, Moth
=. ing Definite Is Ac-
complished

Facing settlement out Of court on
terms supplied by counsel Tor y. ~
Barr, contractor for open work on
County Ditch No. SIS, or the proba :
bility of becoming involved In APP
proximately ninety lawsuits in dis
trict court, a hearing on the accept
ance of the contract of Contractor
Barr as complete, which was attend
ed by a large group OF property
owners along the ditch, was adj
journed at noon today with no &C.
ton taken on the matter.
The hearing this morning on the
acceptance of the completion or the
contract by Mr.. Barr, brought forth
strenuous objection on the part oil
the property owners through their
attorneys. c. ]. Laurisch and George
w. Champlin.
Lona-Time Controversy.
The controversy, which has been
existing for some time past between
the contractor and the property
owners, with the county board as
mediator, arose over the claims OF
the contractor for approximately
$4,000 for extra work performed I'M
der the contract for the open work
on the ditch. The squabble has
been caused due to an error in the
engineers advertisement for bids
on the Job, when an amount OF dirt
yardage of ditch profile was over
looked and not included In the eS-
innate. The Barr claims are for
payment on the digging or the ex-
ira yardage.
county surveyor, was read in which
l. Hitch xzya Z of4rI {
pletedy as far as the contract was
concerned. He was requested to
explain what he found IN nlakine
the examination of the ditch, which
he briefly did.
Offer Of Settlement.
c. H Mackenzie, attorney 3cl
Contractor Berr, made statei'iepi
as to the number of extra yards OF
dirt taken from the ditch by Mr.
Barr, and offered a concession OF
nearly $4,000 from the amount
claimed under the contract. saving
his client desired a fair and friend
ly settlement.
Attorney Laurisch expressed hi.
opinion that no real concession had
been made and referred to a decis-
ION of the supreme court in the
matter Of settlement of Judicia
Ditch No. 3 better known as the
Jackson Lake ditch. He declared
hat the report of the engineer was
Incomplete and indefinite as to the
present condition of the ditch.
A lengthy discussion was held
during the meeting as to whether
the proper slope of the ditch had
been maintained by the contractor
Charles A. Larson, one OF the pro-
7erty owners, spoke of waikiki
along the ditch and finding STANDING
water in various places, especially
near the Ray farm. A discussion
vas held as to the specifications
profile and contract on the ditch
all of which were examined during
the hearing.
Toward the close OF the meeting
Attorney Mackenzie explained the
'egal phase of the situation which
would arise unless some means OF
settlement of the matter would be
taken by the property owners. He
said that the county would be in
~olved in two law suits; his client
n two, and that every one OF the
property owners, approximately
eighty five persons, would each be
involved in a court case, which
would involve greater expenditure
han the settlement of the matter
out Of court.