New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-01-18

tlst might be an idea but where such imnen -e ia'er
ets were At stake be could good reason Tor suca
haste IN violating injunction IN this manner IL wa
contempt Of most outrageous character, and sucn
a. has no precedent in modern times.
The Corpor alton are the Trustees in regard 70 tns
property It was an unwArranted breach Of trust for
them to make this grant, hthey had the authority
without the publication Of advertisement for pro-
posals or bids. lie had numerous authorities on this
point.
Mr. Van B. argued a, Considerable length. He had
abstsined be said from discussing the general ques
ton and had merely confined himself to the question
of contempt The Injunction valid until it should
be set aside and II the Court does uphold its own
dignity by nicting whatever punishment the law al
lows it to infct, their authority would in future be
Knocked, and the Judiciary would find il impossible to
carry on the business of the country.
Mr. Field in behalf of Aid. Sturtevant and others,
replied, laying down, already stated four PROPOSE
tions-that the Injunction was imperative against the
members, because they were parties to the suit;
also because they not served with the afdavit on
which the injunction granted that although the
MAYOR was served with the affidavit, the members in
viduslly should also have been so that If operative
did not restrain the members from voting as they did
which was not upon the resolution but upon the veto
says on the return of apaper from the Mayor they shall
proceed to consider it &c. and lastly that the Court
has no jurisdiction over the legislative action OF the
Common Council any than it has over the veto oil
the Mayor or any other power Of the kind Mr. F. ci
ted case in 18th Paige, oil, where attempt was
made to attach person ~ho not party to the suit
and the Chancellor be could be attached ne also
cited other cases on the point, among them Grcenc
ON Evidence 3d. which says no person can be bound
by judgment except he ia party to the suit, and
where Judgment cannot effect party, injunction
Mr.. +. said cannot
As to the second point, the old Court Of Chancery
held that 1t was sufficient hold party If be had been
present TO hear the matter but the practice has been
altered and the individual must how be served with
notice of the case before he be charged with con-
tempt in reference TO injunction II was necessary
10 serve the Aldermen and Assistants with Injunction
il WINS also necessary TO servethem with the affidavit on
! which it rested.
The Injunction old not in terms by any fair colstruc-
ton Mr. T. sad, prohibit tee members from voting on
the veto. They required to do so by law and
when their names called vote aye or nay, as they
deem best Over this the Court has no control lts
jurisdiction after the passage OF law or
ordinance restrain IL the law appears TO be void or
unconstitutional; its being carried into effect. The
Common Council of New.York, byl its charter, is de-
clared to he legislative body and the Court cannot IN
terfere with the free power of vote by its members
Mr. +. commended both on the ground that the injunc
ton by its terms had not been violated, and that the
Court had not jurisdiction the action Of the mem
bers. no contempt he'd been made out While on his
argument the Court adjourned the case to Saturday
next when the Associate Judges will again be enabled
to sit.