New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-12-09
LAW COURTS.

From the nlinutes RICHARD SCOTT Clerk
LAW COURTS.
CorRr CALENDAR THIS Day.-Superor, Su
rreme and Common Pleas, already published
CRcuu.-Nos. tl02 1889, l,04l, l,043, l,Oi5,
DAG l04s, 049, l,721, l,054, 679, 1880, 1857,
LOSS, 237, 3l3, l,o35, 1926, 1876
CIRCUIT CouRr-Before Judge Willard - Ha-
man H. Gunttr, VS.. Henry T. Holco}m and Gar
net VancleG implicated tcnh Francis Kain-To
recover the amount of checks to which plea OF
sury was setup already reterredto. Nerdictor
plaintiff $l,613, being amount.
SUPREME Cour-Hqbeas Corpns--The par.
ties charged with the robbery at the dwelling Of
the Countess lie Caumont, in Paris, ordered to be
given mp, pursuant to demand under treaty. to the
French Government, were brought, on Saturday,
before Judge Edwards, and their discharge de.
manded. The hearing OF the case stands post
poned.
supE1uoR Counr-Beore Judges Oakley,
Sanford and paine-D G sions james w.
Smith vs.. CITY Of New- T0rk.-Plaintil, on the
new law going into operation giving the legsla'
tive business TO the Common Council aud the eX-
ecutive business to the Departments was among
others in making proposals tor the first contract
under the new law, being for regulating and
paving portion OF Twenty second St certain
form was required by law, which the others had
rot complied with, leaving the proposal OF MIR.
Smith standing alone. His proposals were much
higher than the others, and the Common Council
On the question being submitted to them directed
the Street Commissioner not to go on with the
work. and the owners were finally allowed to go
on with it themselves, 1t costing them we under
stand about n l,oUO.
MIR Smith subsequently sued the Corporation
IN the Superior Court claiming that he was enti-
tied to the contract aud could have made profit
Of 600. The subject was referred to Elk Chief
Justice Jones, who decided in favor OF MI Smith.
and motion was made and argued to set the re.
port aside.
THIS Court held that the Street Commissioner
is not an agent OF the Common Council but an Of
Eccr elected to perform certain duties MS pointed
out by law and that he has right to proceed,
nor are his acts binding the Corporation unless
Ire strictly acts up to the law. In the present
case his omission to state III the advertisement
the amount OF security which wond be required
YVES informal and plaintiff could not claim to
take advantage of the intormalty of the other es-
Inmates, and disregard this
The Court also remarked that the officers Of the
department bound to be governed strictly by
the rules and regulations and ordinances OF the
Common Council and II they vary from those rules
or ordinances the Corporation is not bound by their
acts. II was necessary in this case that tue Com
missioner should have advertised according TO the
form pointed out. Mr. Smith knew he had not
done So and stated III consequence In his Oller,
sum which would be sufficient for the security.
Had the Street Commissioner even entered INTO
contract with him without conforming to the rules,
the Corporation would not have been bound by 1t.
But the principal point IS that the law requires,
in all cases that the Street Commissioner shall
submit the estimates to the Common Council,
and an appropriation be made by latter on all
sums over $500, before any contract shall be en-
tered into. The referee considered this only to
M an that the Common Council shall have, by
tie means, a knowledge of how much money they
VAL be required to appropriate. This Court does
not so consider. IL thinks the intention Of the
law was to give the Common Council control over
tie matter SO tar az 10 say whether the work
shall be gone on with or not, as the expense may
be greater than to warrant, under the crcum-
stances an expenditure by the City, or the as
sessng, for the amount, OF the owners Of adjoin-
ing property. They cannot, however, should
contract be entered INTO by the City take It from
The lowest regular bidder and give it to another.
Judgment reversed, with costs and rule OF refer
ence discharged
Frederick Il. TAprst0a, ei al. vs. Joseph Gat!lard,
Dr. Ell ALTO recover Of defendants, creditors of
+. J. Lewis. of the White Fort distillery, and
claimed, under an arrangement that had been
made, to be dormant partners Of hs,j the value OF
a quantity OF moasses, furnished on hls note TO
Mr. w G Sterling, one Of the creditors, agent OF
the others, who were Committee OF the cfedl-
tors Of Mr. Lewis 1t was contended, on the tri-
al, that Mr. Sterling and not the defendants, was
LIABLE and nonsuit ordered. Motion was
made to set the nopsut aside. Judges Oakley,
Campbell and Paine sat on the argument ana
Judge c. made the decision in this case, concarred
in by Judge Oakley, considering that enough nad
been shown to warrant the idea that the dlsIne
ny was being carried on for the beneht OF tns Gos
ditors, the defendants who had become pI hat
to the arrangement to relieve Mf LgTn' tie Tnry.
it was case Of fact to be decided ~ o snS
and act the nonsut aside, and new tfai
Judge Paine who presided a. 'n LIS ot rouch
different opinion, and gay S, ntP bod bean shown
length considering that nothing naa nS;.o,s Te,
re- pyoye partnership, or sna' the 0'e"i'0i' ""''
liable. NJ, r.. SIN continue through
ro1lnorg, with az lntcrmisson OF one weea ION n
Sslb Dece~oer 10 first Monday IN January SaU'
.es 18th have not been noticed may DC so TOR
c.. Wnnday inJanrary, and placed at the end OF
the En- the January General Term, there viii be
I'm, one Calendar, embracing the original branch
ard the transferred causes branch-the latter be-
;le placed in their order before the former
Chief Justice Oakley announced that applica-
tion will be made TO the Legislature TO alter thy
law which defines the daty Of the Judges of the
transferred branch u the hearing oil transferred
,anses only 80 IS to consolidate both braneles OF
The Court-in which case there Will be every
month, a General Tenn, Trial Term Of txo Courts.
end Special Law Term, &c.