| Show I FARRELL WINS ARIIITIIATOIS DECLARE HE is EXILED EX-ILED TO PAYMEXT After Many Day He Will Draw Pay For Extra AViriitf on the Joiiit Building Other Claim Comes Bit Today Notice yas served yesterday upon the ma or advising him of 1 decision by the arbitrators in the matter of the claim of J W Farrell against the city As was outlined in The Herald yesterday yes-terday morning Farrell is 0 victor the commissioners having given him 144509 I Two of the arbitrators Messrs Kern and LaVclle concur in this decision de-cision while the third J W Midgley will file a minority report in which he will dFffer from tlie others in the sum of 300 or 100 This decree does not settle all the trouble by any means Inasmuch as it disposes of the extra feed wiring alone There are some other matters which will have to be disposed of In the future amounting to about 7000 The arbitrators in ihis case agreed on the amount of work which had been performed and were unable to get together as regards prices to be paid Kern and LaVelle were in favor of paying the figures which were in vogue three years ago when the work voge g was contracted while Midgley thought the prices of the present were right and proper Farrell has come to the conclusion that he will make the committee an offer at Us meeting today which will avoid all this trouble in making a settlement set-tlement of the balance of the account This matter has been pending three months and has cost Farrell 600 while the bill the city and county will have to satisfy amounts to 53S The reason why thcformeYl i the greater part of the expense was on account of his having to pay expenses of several witnesses who would not come anr1 testify in his favor until their expenses vere put up while those who testified in favor of the city did so gratis Farrell complains bitterly of the manner In which he has been treated and contends that he has not been used right by the architects The work was ordered by them else he would not have performed it In relation rela-tion to the change of wires which was done by the electric light company this work cost the city and county 950 Jones bid 5200 on the same work and I Farrell bid 200 but the light com panys offer to do the job at cost was accepted The finale was the price was charged against Farrell In relation to this matter the contention is made by Farrell that when the contract con-tract was let the specifications called wa1 for rubber tubing This was changed after the contractor had ordered the goods to paper The firm supplying the city and county warned them the material should not be used in wet cement but wet cement was used just the same and the job had to be done over again > 1 Farrell complained to the arclPtect it the time that this was wrong but he had to go on with the task of replacing re-placing the rubber with the paper I I is thought at the meeting of the committee today that when Farrell makes his proposition it will be accepted accep-ted and the debt paid off J is a fact i that Farrell is the only one of the I contractors who has had to wait and the comments unon tire proposition are not very kindly many architects and contractors of the city contending I he is feeing badly treated |
