The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-06-29
Court for the Correction Of Errors.

Present all the Members ercept the Judges of the Supreme
Court aud Senators Faulkner and Taylor
JUNE 2S.-MANDAMUs-This being the day designated
for the argument in relation to the Sixth Ward election
and the election Clerks the two Boards immense
number OF persons assembled ut early hour to witness
the proceedings. Messrs Charles OConner A. L. Jordan
and A. Cowdrey, appeared counsel behalf of the
Mayor while the opposite side represented by its for
advocates. Messrs. Fooe Wood and Graham. There
three causeshat of Mcssrs Heath and Roome
sors with those Of Joseph r. Taylor and Edward Will
ment, and the same decision given the whole. The
damus we need not n.y. has been issued requiring the
to those gentlemen officers duly elected But coun
sci are to be heard side. Messrs OConner and Jor
dan will address the Court the part the Mayor and
Messrs Foote and Wood for the REALTORS After some III
tie preliminary matter the case was opened on the part
plaintiff in
attending the mandamus thus far The official order TO
the late election the adavits relating the attack by
mob on the Sixth Ward Hotel where the first district pol
was held whilst the were counting the tickets
their fight from the and subsequent return abou
half an hour when they found as majority of the in.
spectors testied) some OF the tickets lying the floor
and some the table the refusal Of the Mayor
in the wing officers Of the Sixth Ward claiming to b.,
elected the ground of return having been made
hmhe declaration that the tickets had not beer
disturbed during the absence of the inspectors but thai
the whole were taken by them to the Mayors Office
counted-aso that the wing officers had been elected BY
the other districts OF the ward the result of which cou
not have been changed by the vote of the first district
to the election Of Mr. Taylor clerk by the whg
bers Of the Board of Aldermen, Mr.. Crolus having
| rendered
man ONeil, which assumption, Mr.. OConnor said wa
counenanced by the other eight members then present
In the other Board relative to another of the complain
ants however, said Mr. OConnor, the different
Mr.. Shaler held possession of his seat Mr.. Atw claim
ed it, out the Mayor would not swear him in although
he by the Recorder both before and after tn.
meeting of the Board Mr.. Crous was not sworn ever
by the Recorder, after the meeting of the Board. MIR
OConner said the members Of the Supreme Cour'
had hastily rendered Judgment without having had tim,
to review the points Of law in the the Sabbath only
Intervening between the argument and their decision
Mr. OConner then read the opinion delivered by the Su
preme Court ongivng Judgment and proceeded in his
marks He tended that the Mayor had right to oo
behind the return Of the inspectors did he think that
the subject than Mr. Morris had The law requires tina
the inspectors shall make return the persons hay
ing the highest number of votes. In this the ballo
had been disturbed and the officers uhoriz
ed by law to do had officially stated that from ply
causes they were unable to make such return Was
for the ministerial officer 0he Mayor interfere anr
himself make out return contradcting their dec laraon
The mandamus might have been issued against the
inspectors, requiring them to show cause but in
stead of that third party was brought up, totally
unacquainted with the circumstances, and called
upon to become the principal, the real parties in
the case having nothing to say in relation to il
The mandamus is sacred instrument, which should b,
rarely touched and never when redress could be had
by any other mode pointed by law In relation to the
assessors the Common Council is authorised to act and
the Alderman and Assistant each Board in itself has
power to examine into the correctness Of the return
This power too solely vested in them and therefore
the Supreme Court had right to interfere. Had tn,
Common Council refused to decide upon the subject ther
voked but with the mode of proceeding and the result
the Supreme Court would have had nothing to do The
members ofthc Common Council act of jury a.
the members of this Court do and to them the decision
such has been conded. As to Alderman Crolius
the did not show him to be elected and he had
right intrde himself without the legal certificate being
first obtained II he thought himself wronged redress
was open to him in proper way Is it right, said Mr.
OC, that who have return should seek to Gust
the members legally in possession, ntrude to
prevent election II men thus in without
the form OF law it will be premium for themselves
friends 10 break the ballot boxes and there may be end
to the number who will claim, by threats and violence
the disputed seats In regard to the clerk, r Tay Tor
Mr. Crolus, and the eight Aldermen who acted with him
did not constitute the Borrd Of Aldermen, and therefore
had right TO elect him. had the Recorder any
thority administer the oath Of Office. The Mayor
whom the authority devolves, present. and Other
person had right to act. In respect to Mr. Williams
the other relaor Mr.. Atwell and the eight member
acting with him, did form the Board Of Assistants
and therefore his election also Illegal Mr. Shae,
continued Alderman de jurs until successor duly
and admitted in his place; and Mr. Atwell could
not be the Assistant Alderman de facto whilst Mr. sha
Ter remained in Office.
These merely the leading points in the They
urged by Mr.. O'Conner with great force and ability
and evidently made considerable impression upon the
minds Of the court and auditory. Mr. Fooe will address
the court this morning the other side His principal
points that none Of the votes being lost the Mayor had
sufficient prima face evidence to enable him TO administer
the oath, SC.
The Court adjourned to 10 this morning.