The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-02-15
The Third Avenue Grading Case.
SUPREME COURT-GENERAL TERN.

Before. Hon. Judges Mitchell Roosevelt and Davies.
FEB 18Th the Matter Of The Application Of Gouveraear
Buy for CeriorGri 10 Reiep the Assessment for Regulating
aud Grading Third from SiItysara street Eighty
second street. ia the Cay Of Neo Yorhrhis application
grading the Third svenne between sixty frs. and Rsks
second streets The application was made before Jusrce
sfs importance be ordered o be heard before The Gsners
IsST BIbSy snd Sssnii.s on hal also Of Xss9s Beck
horn benjamin De Forest csdwslisder Golden.
theodore IOmn.on appeared counsel on behalf Of the
and Martin RS for s as The
grading the avenue was opposed by al The owners whou,
charge e..
se this rns was ordered soey for Se our
pose Of accommodating the third avenue Railroad which
missioner caused estimate and specification Of the work
wan and 90 Cubic
sal,sr Of xe feet span and orty Lneal Ies Of three
ne 81 ne. sss
:, ,s.S .. . @ :: 4:
s' sss @
wars s 10 ns IN wes w.. ass sSnss! q s .s
The estimate for which was 80 cents per yard was in
Sss S w 3. sss Cred y
here were SoSo cubic YARDS Of reisning wall 70 be built
while he Der Ie9rnsd in !hs I'm ses he price
iesnlns wal he estimate which ne ooc,rscior SEES down
he number 39sl. II is charged general he
s Ds 40 fs 20 es hs as n so q To
could have been done by one Of the other contractors 81 his
The counsel for plaintiff said had been claimed on be.
a %ne2 he sss 9sS la
b .gce, only 70 street, And not to Avenues a0s
ss rs Is. hs "a seSs
pecsy he Third avenue should be done A. the expense Of
ss sna nd S Sa sssn s sg
The city treasury for reguiar and sdng the third avenue
and @ u. Question up under The s sm s. ,eco1
city should pay owners the properly. This
s0Tsh & sss e
Common Council had 70 u5sdcOn under . The 4; hs,
TO ,hai Ell hai The contract regulating the Third
ma aesed an0 could on
IL !. be s na cca be o s
motion. al ha testimony should be introduced before the
he only ;s@sdy supper p which sasqritss
and % sr or o9n sse s.e esss % e
Or The along The line q DE alesed in
SS Ss an IKE Discretion
Common Council legal discretion and they are
Inferior tribunal The power Of decision. and makes tsa
sss o ma ,sser.. even h. s.c soe rhs1 e
.rAry e principles Of Law thar II Is monsrous doctrine hat
ses,osn Sscb smo ssr N smporsss. m,sr o
stances he wr, o. hssess corpgs si hs importance Of
view Of The Of propery-in view Of the I'D.
mnsrson q the government OF city, and II the sdms
trson 81 justice self-a demand tha; the plainfs at
less should have bearing before the Supreme Court OF the
State.
On the other hand c,usepded BY the counsel for the
corporation that the Court could not review cerors.
quesn Of evidence 20 which The reply made that there
we're no questions evidence hs he face we're oonceded
s y
Council snsl and that there any fraud the only
meansof would be by action To this argued
thai the contrary had been decided and that cercrnr the
only remedy The Common CoupciM urged had right
without application being made there
for but conended ncp position thai they hhey bad
power and that they responsible for Us
and The Court could thai vas prejsdicia 70 The
public interest they would review ~ had been asked
The Oourt After bearing argument for aud sgansi the
ton, has reserved e decision.