Victory for Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Co.

Victory for Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Co.

The Post of Cincinnati, contains the following item: In the Common Pleas Court, Thursday, the Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Company scored a signal victory over its competitors. As will be remembered, the trustees of St. Bernard a few weeks ago awarded to this concern the contract for furnishing the pump for the new village waterworks, and at a price $1,500 higher than the bid of the John H. McGowan Company.

A few days later a suit was filed by three citizens of St. Bernard, asking that a restraining order be issued, preventing the award of the contract to the Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Company.

The case came up for trial before Judge Kumler, Monday, and three days were devoted to the hearing of testimony, which showed that the suit was inspired by the McGowan Company. The trustees testified that they had awarded the contract to the Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Company because their firm had submitted evidence of its ability to construct pumps of the required pattern while the McGowan Company had given no satisfaction on this score.

The McGowan Company’s witnesses admitted that this company had never built a pump of the kind in question, and had not the patterns necessary for their construction.

Pumps of the kind manufactured by the Laidlaw-DunnGordon Company are in use in 250 towns and cities in the United States.

After hearing eighteen witnesses for the plaintiff, the Court announced that it was unnecessary for the defense to call any more witnesses.

In announcing his decision dissolving the temporary injunction and dismissing the case, Judge Kumler said he did so on two grounds :

First—He had made up his mind from the testimony that this action, although brought in the name of taxpayers of the village of St. Bernard, was in fact brought by the John II. McGowan Pump Company.

Ex-President Briggs’ Noted Convention dog.

Second—He had made up his mind from all the testimony pro and con that there was no bad faith proved; that there was a pretty wide discretion vested in the trustees by the statutes, and he could not say from the testimony that it had been abused ; and if they were of the opinion that the Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Company’s pumps were the best pumps for the village of St. Bernard, all things considered, in the absence of fraud, he did not think he should set aside their opinion.

Victory for Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Co.

0

Victory for Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Co.

The Post of Cincinnati, contains the following item : In the Common Pleas Court, Thursday, the Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Company scored a signal victory over its competitors. As will be remembered, the trustees of St. Bernard a few weeks ago awarded to this concern the contract for furnishing the pump for the new village waterworks, and at a price $1,500 higher than the bid of the John II. McGowan Company.

A few days later a suit was filed by three citizens of St. Ber nard, asking that a restraining order be issued, preventing the award of the contract to the Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Company.

The case came up for trial before Judge Kumler, Monday, and three days were devoted to the hearing of testimony, which showed that the suit was inspired by the McGowan Company. The trustees testified that they had awarded the contract to the Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Company because their firm had submitted evidence of its ability to construct pumps of the required pattern, while the McGowan Company had given no satisfaction on this score.

The McGowan Company’s witnesses admitted that this company had never built a pump of the kind in question, and had not the patterns necessary for their construction.

Pumps of the kind manufactured by the Laidlaw-DunnGordon Company are in use in 250 towns and cities in the United States.

After hearing eighteen witnesses for the plaintiff, the Court announced that it was unnecessary for the defense to call any more witnesses.

In announcing his decision dissolving the temporary injunction and dismissing the case, Judge Kumler said he did so on two grounds :

First—He had made up his mind from the testimony that this action, although brought in the name of taxpayeisof the village of St. Bernard, was in fact brought by the John If. McGowan Pump Company.

Second—He had made up his mind from all the testimony pro and con that there was no bad faith proved; that there was a pretty wide discretion vested in the trustees by the statutes, and he could not say from the testimony that it had been abused ; and if they were of the opinion that the Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Company’s pumps were the best pumps for the village of St. Bernard, all things considered, in the absence of fraud, he did not think he should set aside their opinion.