The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-03-02

NAV be ordered under section twenty five for rea-
sopable period-as the nature OF the case snail re-
quire" (sec. TO- i'd If Imprisonment cannot De Or
dered under section twenty-five, solely with that view,
then that part OF the section which prescriDes the
limit of six months is nugatory for the reason that
imprisonment ordered to coerce the payment OF
the fine must continue until it is paid, while
this section expressly provides that the i'm
prisonment shall be until the costs and expenses OF
The proceedngsyare paid; and also, if fine shall be
imposed until such fine be paid and this is in adj
diton to an imprisonment ordered for some reasona-
bic time not exceeding six months which of course
must terminate when the period expires, although the
fine has not been paid, and cannot terminate before,
even if has been paid, while the imprisonment may
continue for years afterwards and until the line Is
paid, but is continued simply because it is not paid
admit an inability to conjecture what case may
arise in which it would be proper, in addition to I'M
posing fine that would indemnify the injured party
and satisfy his costs and expenses to order an I'M
prisOnment as punishment exceeding In duration
that which the court could order if the proceeding
was one to simply punish the offender for criminal
contempt The revisors, however, suggested that
such cases might arise, and submitted sectlons
framed with view to confer such power,
and the Legislature enacted the sections as
proposed, and render this exposition OF the
views with which they were framed. What
effect the passage Of the resolutions referred 10
in the fifth nte0gatory should justly have upon the
final Judgment of the Court is a question not now
under consideration, and is one in respect to which
the parties should be heard, and which should be
carefully considered with all other attending crcum
stances, before any opinion is formed But it must
be obvious passage Of those resolutions I'M
explained is pertinent to the question whether the
disobedence was wilful or was an act done in good
faith and in the honest belief that nothing prohibit
ed by the Injunction was done by the defendant IN
voting for the resolutions referred to in the fourth in
terrogatory. If they tend to show that the acts
which alleged to constitute violation OF the IN
junction were done in good faith, and in the honest
belief that they did not violate it, them according to
all the cases, and upon principle, there should be
neither fine nor Imprisonment, for the purpose OF
punishment, il no actual loss has resulted TO
the REALTORS. There should be neither fine nor
imprisonment, for the very reason that the
act of disobedience was not wful, but was
done in good faith and without any inten-
ton to disobey. If this be 50, then it would seem to
be equally incontrovertible that il, unexplained,
they tend to show that the disobedence was deibe-
rate and designed, and that the acts done were I'M
derstood as being expressly prohibited by it, such
consideration cannot be overlooked in any final adj
Indication based on correct principles and justly
adapted to the nature OF the case should not have
deemed it necessary to have examined or discussed
this question SO fully were it not Of the highest i'm
portance that in every case that may arise, these
proceedings should be conducted throughout on prn
cples applicable equally to the case Of all parties Of
Tending, and with o correct understanding OF the
meaning and object Of the statute under which they
are prosecuted and that felt it incumbent from the
confidence with which eminent counsel avowed the
views they presented to disrust the accuracy of my
own previous convictions, and to consider upon full
examination, whether they were well founded On
such examination cannot resist the conclusion that
the fifth interrogatory is pertinent and proper, and
that it is the duty Of the defendant to answer it.
Mr.. Field then read the following answer of -
to the fifth interrogatory fled against him in this
preceding
Fifth-To the fifth interrogatory he saith that he
did, at such meeting and Immediately after the adop-
ton of said resolution, vote with q majority OF the
members Of the Board Of Aldermen, in favor OF the
preamble and resolutions, OF which copy (marked
c. is annexed to the heterogeneous. That in doing
so, his only motive was to vindicate the dignity and
assert the rights Of the Common Council Of the City
of New York. and Of their whole constituency; which
dignity and rights he believed to be unjustly and il
legally assaied by the injunction, and complaint on
which it was founded OF portion Of whose contents
he had heard through public rumor. That the mo
tiyes Of the members of the Common Council were
aspersed, and their selfrespect wounded, by the
charges Of the said complaint and that the circum
stances under which the Injunction was obtained and
served were highly irritating. The resolution had
been pending nearly two months; the chambers Of
the judges were within few rods Of the chambers
Of the Common Council, and the Mayors and other
with the Office of the Corporation Counsel There
had been ample opportunity to apply for the injnnc-
ton before; and even at the time when it was ap-
piled for there was time enough for notice to the cor
poraton, and hearing them, before granting the in
functions that the terms of the members OF the Board
Of Assistant Aldermen, q part of the Common Coun-
Gil, were to expire on the Sd January, 1858; and
when the respondent heard that an injunction had
been granted without notice and continued beyond
the time when the Common Council was to expire,
and requiring the defendants as if in mockery, to
show against it the 18th of January, he be-
leved that it was device Of the plaintiffs to defeat
the resolution by ndrection and virtually to decide
the case without trial. This respondent also be-
leyed, as he still believes that the Court had no u-
rsdicton to grant the injunction; and believing that
it is the right of every citizen to question and resist
the exercise of illegal power, he did, under the in
uence of all these considerations vote for the said
resolutions; but in doing So he did by no means in
tend to question the exercise Of any rghtful power
offer any resistance to the law, any contempt to
the lawful authority Of the Court. Said preamble
and resolutions were, therefore, adopted by said
Board.
Mr.. Van Buren, deemed it important that the plain
tifs should have copies of these answers. Aldermen
Sturevant and Wesley Smith are the only two de.
PENDANTS who have in compliance with the order Of
the Court, served their answers them. 1t may be
necessary to make some aiidavts in reply TO these
answers and they therefore ought to have them.
Judge Duer-The answers with the exception Of
one or two, are all the same.
Elk Chief Justice Bronson inquired how many had
answered.
Mr.. OConor-Three.
Ex-Chief Justice Bronson-Then there are twenty
four yet to answer.
Judge Duer understood Mr. O'Conor to have pro-
missed to file the others in the course of the day.
they would be all flied to-day; there may be many
delays; but the answers will be the same as those
read.
Ex.Chief Justice Bronson-They were to have been
served on US on Friday It may be all right when
thirty aldermen concerned; but if it indi-
vidual, this Court would commit him for not comply
ing with its order.
Mr.. O'Conor-Take your remedy.
ExJudge BronsOn-lf the order was entered on
the minutes would move for an attachment.
Judge Bosworth said there did not seem to be any
difficulty. Counsel has read the form Of the answers,
and says that the others will be the same.
Mr.. O'Conor-There has been so much cavilling
l will not make any promise.
Judge Duer said the Court could not relieve Mr..
OConor from the promise already made, that the
answers shall be lied in The course Of the day.
Mr.. O'Conor would do so, but there may be one or
two that may not be found, and he should not like
the Court to have the opportunity of sending him to
Jail to keep company with his clients Q4aughter.)
Mr.. Van Buren,, after looking at Alderman
Stutevant's answer, proposed to read one or two
affdavits which would be applicable to all of the
defendants. He then read that of Mr.. Henry Hilton,