Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-09-22
Waterville Fathers
CONTINUED from Paue One)

six Of which entered into the case. the
seventh being thrown out by mutual
consent of counsel. Cyril NJ. Jolly rep
resented the city while Mark r. Bart
lett acted as counsel for the defend
ant.
chief OF Police Franklin Gaskell was
the hrst to testify for the city in the
irst charge, which specified neglect of
outy on the part OF Mr.. Crawford in
connection with the police signal sys-
tenn. Chief Gaskell said that the sys-
tenn had functioned only intermittent
~ since March, 1925; that he had
called Mr.. Crawford's attention to 1t
several times and that this was one of
the first things brought to Mayor Lib
oy's attention when the latter took
office last March.
he said he believed the system had
been out of order about 9 IL months
all told
Deputy Marshall Poiricr was next
on the stand. his testimony in sub
stance being identical with Chief Gas
keirs. In addition he stated that on
several occasions, he found it neces-
sary to go out In the patIol to get in
touch with officers on their beats,
when he might have used the system,
had it been in order.
Edward Butler, an electrician testi-
fled he had been called by the city to
look into the system: found boxes TO
be in bad condition and said that Mr..
Crawford did not act in a friendly
manner toward him.
In the second charge. specifying
neglect Of duty in failing to establish
a connection between the Glinell sys-
tenn in high school and the Central
Fire station. William Jones. an cleo
trician testified that he had inspected
the system and that it had never been
connected with the fire station.
In the third charge. specifying in
efficiency and neglect in failing to
lay out lines by which the street
I commissioner could build certain
sidewalks, William Colby. the street
commissioner, said that he was de-
/ layed in certain instances and once
found. 1t necessary to dump an
| amount of tar and gravel which
spoiled because Mn Crawford failed
| to line out the work in time
Next Mrs Thayer, private secre-
| tary to the mayor on the stand
! identified a memorandum list pre-
, pared for city government meeting
! in which instances of neglect on the
! part of the city engineer were point
| ed out.
| In the fourth charge. which speci-
! fed inetliciency in drawing up plans
! for garage, in which to store the
| city machinery. William Colby tes-
! titled that after the building was
| practically completed it was found
| impossible to get the steam roller
into it.
Chester Getchen. city treasurer,
! testified In the 18th charge against
, Mr.. Crawford, which specified that
| the latter had delayed sending a bill
| to the State in order that the city
! might be reimbursed for expendi-
! lures made building new concrete
/ road. Mr.. Getchell said he called
! Crawford's attention to the matter
! twice but to his knowledge the bill
had not been sent in. This, he said,
| cost the city money, in the form of
/ interest charges. He said the bill
! had been delayed about three weeks
/ at a cost of s4S to the city
/ Testimony OF l.orimer Dixon. city
/ auditor, was i'll effect much the same
as that of Mr.. Getchel. Mrs. Thayer
1 next stated that Mr.. Crawford re-
fused to OK. bills from his depart
! mont. At this point the city rested
Mark Bartlett. counsel for the de-
Tense, then called the attention of
the members of the city government
to the fact that they were now sit
Ting Is judicial body to hear evil
dence and act on it as a jury. He
said that the removal of a city Off
Ger was a rather serious thing to do
and cautioned them against preju-
dice and opinions previously formed.
/ Mr. Crawford then took the stand.
He said ne had been city engineer
and electrician since 1914: that the
police signal system had been install
led since 1916. He gave technical
reasons for deterioration for wiring
which connects the system He read
: extracts from city report books of
/ 1926. in which he called the city
governments attention to the condi-
! ton of the signal system. He said
he had never been authorized form :
ally to go ahead with the work of
stringing new wires. Mr.. Soper OF
the Central Maine Power Company
substantiated the testimony of Mr..
/ Crawford as also did Mr.. Hutchin-
son.
| Attorney Bartlett then pointed out
that according to the articles in the
! city ordinance prescribing the duties
| of the city engineer and electrician
| Mr.. Crawford could not be held re-
sponsible for charges preferred
against him which did not involve
| these duties