Hide Article Text (OCR)
Seawall Case(Continued From Page 1)e.idleatayVirgadamo continued to interest himself in the construction of the wall the opinion continues. It recalled that at a council meeting of Sept. 6, 1949, Virgadamo “charged publicly that the wall was not being built in compliance with requirements.^«‘Protracted Controversy “There followed a protracted and acrimonious controversy over the seawall “which was marked by frequent charges and countercharges made publicly, an investigation of the charges by a committee of the municipal government and inspections made by expert engineers engaged for suen purposes by the opposing parties.Noting that the controversy “gained considerable notoriety through the local press and radio news broadcast/' the rescript said that “the high point was reached on Oct. 23, 1949, when Virgadamo Jfre-iv iterated his charges in an address vt to the public made over the facili-' ties of radio station WRJM-'Work on the w*all was completed Nov, 23, 1949, and a Board ot Aldermen meeting, the public works commissioner reported that the work under the contract had been satisfactorily completed. The board voted payment of the balanceas ar« those land dieatc Conse come on Tt have No a site schoo tary voter gram over doubl schoc tion; its it befoimeseresJ.ners.lisn-ialLinMi daug son late to W Loui in a even by t past Atte Ernlt;due on the contractors’ bill and | Tivoted that they be complimented for the ‘'fine job in building thers..le-. 2»s.,ss.ie,rrys..I3tindshting , It int-at 7wall.Evidence Turned Overne Defendant O'Donnell met with sh Virgadamo in January, 1950, me F.! latter making available to O Eton-he nell such evidence he had accumulated.‘'The defendant O’Donnell aid not consult with the plaintiff at any time concerning his version of the construction of the seawall, the rescript states,O’Donnell, it says, also addressed the council on Feb. t, labu, stating that as a citizen and taxpayer he had been “rooked” and that tax money was going down the drain.”' . .. ,When the poster is considered in its entirety,” the rescript says, it is obvious that its purpose was to charge that the wall was not built in compliance with contract requirements .... clearly the language of the poster is not susceptible of being construed in charging the crime of robbery.’ Furthermore, the rescript says that nowhere in the publication is the plaintiff referred to expressly, or charged personally with wrong-: doing. “On the contrary the publication is clearly directed, in this respect, at the city officials of. Newport.”“Disinterested Engineers”Referring to the testimony ofGardner S. Gould, engineer retained by Virgadamo, and Prof. T. Leighton Bohl, retained by the city,theintemoreon:“thiinmeiIrthetracwalandthisTscrancforwe:waThlt;thestrsai1thelo.es-i toshestif-\vore-rstyiwithlt;iyco:StCpediibyofWiPCY»
Newspaper Details
Newport Mercury and Weekly News
Newport, Rhode Island, US
Fri, Dec 05, 1952
Page 3
Full Page
Clipped by
Sammi B.
NA 18 May 2021
Other Publications Near Newport, Rhode Island
Newport Daily News
Newport Journal Weekly News
Newport Navalog
Newport Journal and Weekly News
Newport Mercury and Weekly News
