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

CO.. 10 nes perceive the iightesa ,appnesfasn
which en- ~ Un6o - that oaee 10 the one under
condaeEstop, nor can helievs II 70 have been The
intentea Of he assndmsnts 70 The charter, pasaed
IN l849, that Tie Cs0ntsaioner OF Repairs and 6up
plies shsuld BE- invoked TO attesd dinner table In the
quasi cspaciy sf head waiter steward that In the
event q bundle Of segArs, pound Of era keTs, or
even bottle Of wine, being wanted, ne should rem
der mis- Official sanction and services to the procure
uent Of ssch Injuries for some one or n,rs Of thu
city guests; and even supposing that 70 have been
the intent of the amendment Of lS49, dlanetr ally
Disagree with the proposition that its 6orce,
30 far a. can affect the case under c0ssiderar
ton, and the supposihous case ] have suggested,
IL not restricted by the amended charter Of 1853.
might here, o6iter suggest to the defendant s,me-
thing not evoked ON tia argument Il length,
7 strict constructionisis," they must, to Be- CON
sistent, confess that IL is 81 least query they
have not m action against whom IL may concern
for the value of the broken vctuals left after the
eItertsinm nt Viii ;h should, under anotser section
OF the charter the defendants construction u COZ,
rect, have been disposed Of at public auction, a.
Corporation property, for the benefit of the city
treasury. though perhaps they will be cO0tent 10
agree With me that Mrs. Taylor, the plaintiffs wife,
upon the trial, by distributing them among the dss-
titute poor. Passing, then, from the third point,
We come 20 the last objection suggested by the de.
PENDANTS, which is based upon the lsth section OF
the amendments TO the charter passed in le49 from
sci for the defendants:
And member Of the Common Connci head OF de-
partmenf chef Of Bureau &c, shsu be directly in
directly Dterssted in any contract work or business or
the sale Of any article nor N the psr
chase Of any real estate ether property belonging
the Corporation, &c.
1t is true the plaintiff is the chief officer Of the
Bureau Of the City Hall and Park" but do NOT
perceive that the account claimed by the plkiatiH
presents case in which he is interested In any
" cont act, work, or business, or the sale Of any
sf le, Or the pu chase Of any real estate or yher
property belonging to the Corporation" This DE-
poses Of tue fourth point; ana upon the whole case,
am Of the opinion that " any committee or officer
Of tie Corp0ration--e the plaintiff-have VIC
lated the sections of the charter in the matter Of
the claim presented, the only relief for the defend
ssts IL such they may attaio BY prosecuting such
committee or officer for IDisfeasance in 0fiea; and
that it is not paradoxcal in law to say that ron-
act such as this may be valid and binding, while
either or both parties to ii might be subject TO
criminal prosecution, conviction, and punishment
for their participation therein the same being a
mhfeasance in Office; and must hold the defend
aots answerable for the acts Of their agent, the
committee and their ratification thereof, by the
auditing the plaintiffs account, and their rssolu-
ton directing the Com otroller to draw his warrant
and pay the bal Ance claimed by the plaintiff view.
ing the same in the light of promise to pay,
funded upon the consideration Of the goods fur
nshed, or the moneys paid therefor, by the plain.
tiff Upon both the morality and the law, I rem
der judgment for the plaintiff in the sum Of $3.50,
allowance, and costs.