The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-08-05

UeI,s <sssse~ sf W~sAassss~'s DasthSay-Os<~
psrasssA LsahAssy ssr WINE nsus'
uARirE COUNT.
Before Hon. Judge Mccarthy.
IA srs r,ytoR ys. THE MAYOR, iLDmnYH, ETC., or
NEW YORK.
PsnAy, Aug. L-rhis was an action brought ~
jams Taylor, the keeper Of The CITY Han. against
the Mayor, Aldermen, &C., Of The city Of New York,
for The recovery Of the balance dle on bin Of re
furnished for the celebration Of Washing
toAs birthday. This case, which was heard before
Ne court without jury, was reported in Thursdays
HnALD. ~
n Q court this morning ordered Judgment for the
plaintiff for $990-the amount claimed-together
with an allowance Of sl2 and costs. The fOllowing
.@sE5s THE DECISION.
MCCARTHY, J.-Tnis was an action brough:
BY the laintin, Mr.. Taylor, to recover cer.
tain moneys by him ex ended under the d.
mon Council 20 make arrangements for the
celeb. s,ion of Wsslingtons birthday, I'D Feb
Yuaxy, 1854, There are tighaeen items OF expendi
tnre ebasged In the bill OF partculars being Tor va
the fetal credit ia claimed and allowed a. paid Of
$751; AT, though items IN the account, are speci
fed a. those to be specially credited with the pay
nave 0eo0 m3U6s
apI ears In the case, and the TACT is not disputed
that tho Common Council by joint resolution, ap
proved BY the Mayor, February list, 1854, app-o
priAed the sum of 81 500 for the celebration Of
washington's birtbday, 22d February, 1884, and
Also tsss that appropriation was made by the vote
Of threef0u, ths Of all the members elected in 90 b
BosId of the Common Counci;" nor is there any
dspute than the joint special committee was duly
appointed, consictiog Of Messrs. G. II. Tucker, w.
B D.ake, VIM. Boa, oman, Arson Hsrrick ind VIM.
Bid, Oh the part OF the B lard Of Aldermen,
and Daniel r Samms, FEd Frye, John McLAoe,
Chas. j. Boldsn an. q. H. Kimbark, on the part OF
sbe Board VI Counelmep. I further Is not disputed
THAI tc resolution of appropriation originated in the
Bier Of Councilman, having been by them adopted
en- Nc Hta Of February, 1854; and coocurred 10 by
the Board of Aldermen on the 20th Of February,
1854 I, fn thsr appears by the evidence Of mem.
berS Of the ommttee, and by their unanimous re-
port, 10 at the articles IT which the disbursements
woie charged were procured aud pad for by the
pIaasff, in pursuance Of the order Of that i,,,t
presentstinD Of the account sued on, the account
vas approved aud certified 70 be correct by the
O,Omitree unanimously, and that by resolution
On the : ssa q Saus me 1854 con- 0
on red in by the Board Of Aldermen on the
18th Of July, 1854, and approved by .be Mayor
on the 18th of July, 1854, The Comptroller
Taylor fer $500, the being the balance due 10
Nun for supplies furnished for the celebration OF
Was' nstons birthday, February 20, 1854, by direc
doc Of the Special Committee OF the Common
Council, tbe amount to be taken from the appropri
alton made for that ooc Asion by resolution OF the
Common Council, app owed by toe Mayor, Feb. Il,
la64" IL also appears that the chief off er of the
Awaiting Barean-the erection OF accounts audited,
settled and approved Of the plaintiffs account as
presented. II further is a conceded fact, that
q the appropriation Of $4,000 before referred
10, only about 81 500 has been expended.
Tins the case stands. An appropriation is regularly
made by the defendants; > { mmittee to carry out
the Objects Of that appropriation Is by them regu-
krly appoibted that committee, III the regular
Of The discharge Of their duties, direct the
The view Of the resolution Of appropriaaon--
theee are all Of them the acts of the de-
fendaDts Upon the order Of the com nittse,
the plaintiff procured the supplies by them
Sssn paid BY the sum q ysso With these fats
before US, in hugasion between two priv ite par
tes, there could be no hesitation in ofhand rep Ter
ing jndgmettIor the plaintiff In the fun az. mot
OF the unpaid baaoce; but it is insisted ~ part
Of the Defendants that they are body corporate.
aching with certain limited powers, delegated 70
them with restrictions by the city charter, and that
ses furnishing OF these Supplies was 10 yto'atioa
thus presenting at first blush case of parties
claiming the benefit Of their own wrong Bat IL
b insisted AMI properly, that every ind'' dal IS
bound 70 mo we w Now 70 .ss c Saar's n - q n
ee; aion was Legal; aud second, whether subsequent
acts of the deitnian.s, recognizing, raafy-
ing and, in effect, promising to pay, have gwen
such vitality to the plaintiffs claim, that the same
"a entitled to bs cognized and enforced 10 coat
Of law. The defence is sought TO be maintained mp
en- gsouI de- b0ts of morality and Of law : ~ ious
indeed, IL seems 10 ne, mus: be ihe pfc sdug Of that
morality, which can consistently, with tue morali-
~, argue TO logical col cusoD, that man Who has
dereG service, fuInistei goods, or paid motey,
IT The reques. AMI = the beseit Of another, body
rparate, Individual, shguld not, as between the
parties ibereto, be eotisie 10 the stipulated recon-
peDse. This IS all that deem 1t proper in this
place to say upoD tbat portion Of the Defendants
argument, which embrace within its scope the no
Fs considerations involve In tie case; but cauuot
forbear giving some, though slight, expression to
the extreme IepugDabce entertain 10 myor mind
towards discussing cayils suggested to the paving Of
disbursements made ia the curse Of natioe zen
G-orse Washington. No American heart can sip-
press emotion ct the Thought Of that great and good
man. and ho Y incosgruous wish that emotion j. the
necessity which coWpels one To hold the sci,es
al justice, that he may, as 1t were, be la'
Hiotism in the one balance and copper con
in she other While allute 70 this, mean no
ct icture upon the conscience Of any oficii' who,
perhaps, synpa'hizing IN the feelings to y n !!
His duty to force that necessity upon me- " is to
be regretted that The necessity mas arisen aud UNDER
must proceed calmly TO consider the validity
IN law Of The objections urged in this actio, the
plaintiffs claim. Tue frs. point presented by the
counsel for the defendants Is upon the twelfth sec
hon OF the act to amend the charter Of the city OF
New York, passed April IL, 1883" Tina. section is
ie these wores:--
Eco IL Al n be done and al supplies to be Tor
sshsd for the Corporation ioyosvog expenditure Of
than two hundred AMI airy dollars, shall be
tract, founded sealed bis proposals, made in
pancs with public poiic for the full period OF days
ell such contracts whom given shall Ne gwen TO the
Awess bcder, with adequate security All such bids or
proposals shalt be op-ped by the heads cf departments
sa,srtipg them presence of c. )troler
and Of tbs parties making than may dssi's to
prerent
And from that section II Is argued that nasmuch
~ The total claimed by the plaintiff is u,re than
"t2S0," the same should have been by contract,
Sith public notice. &C., and no. having been 80, he
sane h illegal. The very nature OF tee pllintih'
claim, (beibg provision for eutertairment,) in.
du es, the instant, the doubt that 1t was one OF
thst character Of expenditures contemplated by toe
twelfth secti n. How would The "puolie notice"
be dawn TO meet the exgency Of the case
Mhar lananaQe onnld be used 10 nrNas