New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-07-06

ruE Rrss AND REID CAsE-OPINION oF JUDGE EpNONDs
De Baum & Thistle against City Of New-York, Russ Reid
In this case piauis tax payers III the City OF
Nav York for themselves and other payers have ied
complaint ASKING that the Common Council OF the Chy
may be restrained from making contract VITA the defend
ants Russ Reid laying portion Oi the Streets Win
the Russ pavement preliminary in auction Is not asked
for but permanent one, 10 restrain tue defendants from
acting under a r. solution then pending in Common
Council and not finally acted upon and II Is also pray cd
that such resolution thus incomplete may DO by
this Court TO be corrupt, fradduit nt and VOID
The grounds which this relief is sOugh. are briefly
these;
That the taxes OF the City have within the past fey
years, gradually increased by of waste nsgi.
genCe, AND corruption of the Common Council.
That there were two applications before the Common
Council, whereby the proposed could have been
done much cheaper and they improperly r.lestel
passed by direct bribery from kuss Reid 10 tue ory
Of The Common Council
That the price proposed 10 be paid - Russ & Red
was excessive unreasonable and 50 made tor IA.
purpose OF enabling them thus TO bnbc the Common
Council
5 That the resolution ieg il violates several pro
visions OF the statute namely that II IS Not based state
m,nts previously made oy tue proper Executive officers
that usurps a'e power "nd 'I lakes the power
from the officer whom properly belongs and coAisrs
ON one to whose department Il does Dot belong.
g. That the resolution was finally hurried through the
Common Council in order 70 ev&dr oil then pending
the Legislature and subsequently passed into lw.
Such the presented on the part OF the plaintiff
on which without hearing the defendants they
strained by prem nsrJ Injunction The Defendants have,
however been heard, before SUD shall inquire,
/ How the ease stands under their explanations and
answer and How far it IS competent proper
Court TO interfere in the thus made out b evidence
on both sides.
to the FRS, allegation that the taxes have greatly in.
creased within eH years. by the waste, negligence and
corruption Of the Goa Council answer made.
The charge extends back period Of eight years and
OF the parties 10 this 20 feel themselves called
upon 10 defend the former members OF the Common COun
al from thus swee ping charge and that part OF the
siui hsd been stricken out Irrelevant 10 the mater
M hand should be obliged 10 hold th)Se persons
who are not now Court snd cannot % heard on tue
charge eonfessedy guilty Of most foul corGPiJn Ii
pAinfu enough for NEE. with charges OF corruption
30 freely against those Who 81 pre- emit constitute
our chief municipal authority. But II would be still more
psinful if were compelled regard the charge distinct
IL ,psde out sg anst al who have administered our Affairs
for the last eight years
am however, saved the necessity by the amendment
that has been made, though must not overlook the fact
that the charge the complaint aud could not De
erased when the application made and granted Tor the
preliminary injunction
As to the second charge that other proposals more I'D
vGntsgeou 10 the City eected Is answered tia!
Russ patent right and under the supreme law OF tas
land monopoly for making that peculiar form OF pave
meni and that under those laws he has the right that
every other holder patent in the country hs to de-
msnd compensation for bis invention
AS TO the third charge that this resolution was sought to
be passed by direct bribery while ii IS mSd1 only on IN