The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-06-16
1he Ten Thousand Dollar Injunction Case.
NOTION To MODIFY TIE INJUNCTION DENIED.


supRKMI ooUsr-Kisss coUvrY-sPs1AL fxRM
JUNE lb.-Riehayd 8 Roberts ne Mayor, Aldermen
and COmmonaly Of the City Of Neso York -BRDsrE, j.
The 7th of the amend the charter Of the city
cfNew York, passed April 20, ls4e ia Of 1s4s, chap
1877 2 requires that all sppro Jrstons Of money from
the city treasury "sha be based upon specific and de-
tailed statements in writing Of the several heads Of depart
menx through the Comptroller" Is objected to the
present motion that the Counsel the Corporation did not
tranrmit TO the Common Council any such statement in
writing basis for the approps alton made In the reso-
op Of that body mentioned in the complaint and njunc-
ten in this From the papers read this motion IL
10 rendered very probable that such statement was
furnished but the absence OF such statement basis
for the sppropriat on averred In the complaint
ad ,v which the injunction issued. The defend
ants were mt called on to meet such aega ion and
abouehh now appears thai the Counsel for the Corpora
ton advice orally 20 the members of the Comm
Council on the subject Of this appropriation does not
positively appear bu that thu specific statement In wrtag
required b. the statute aso have been duly made
through the Comptroller is therefore unnecessary
to inquire whether failure comply with this prescribed
formaly OF legislation renders the act OF the Common
The ground upon which the injunction originally ia
sn'd was that the appropriation made contrary TO
law. II, examination, that objection to the approprm
ton proves we'll founded the Injunction must stand not
must be dissoved The further ground for the inunc-
iion laid in the complaint viz That the proceedings Of
the Mayor, IN aid Of which the appropriation was made,
were facous, Of evil example, &r 10 not such as feel
willing 10 act upon or even TO examine II the legislative
authority OF the city have in any the power make
expenditure like that under examination, dis
claim all power 70 revise the propriey Of the action in
this particular case. for them 70 decide upon the
necessity OF the expenditure and whether tts ten
dency vii be good or evil; whether It will disturb
the public peace and be Injurious 70 the citizens
payers Of the oity, or other~se All such consders
tons these to be urged upon the Common Council
while the resolution In process Of ado on After adop
ton the only question for the Court already said tho
one or poser and that not merely ~ 70 this particular
act but the power to pass any similar eDGctnent
whatever subject but presenting the same features the
is 70 be remarked Ia. upon the argument Of the mo
ton question made 10 the plaintiffs right 10
maintain this action, and ID therefore not 10 DO OK
amined.
To proper examination of the question presented IL "a
necessary TO revert to the resolutions making the appro
affidavit Of the Counsel 10 the Corporation 10 have attended
their passage.
Az finally enacted the resolutions, with the preamble
accompany ing them, we're in the following language
Whereas represented that the Legislature of hI. State
has aurns q present session pissed various acts renting
H.. a % Ss aSs %
ann teiere with the property rights franchise privileges
Whereas said pas.sd without The application
" rSs % r. s be- and he
hereby ed to report to the Common Council cont
delay what acts have be' so passed by said Legislature set
S..lsss That I !. ace necessary The said corn.., be
ohrr sci as Re shall touching the validity and
ib Common .ounc opinion IN detail in ress'd hereio
Resolved, That the sum Of $1,000 so much thereof ~
BY sppro rsisa pay charges Of such add final
smse r ss pnpo,s sforss.d and for H. purpose Of de-
ayn. The expenses Of any suit or suits which have been
70 s The validity Or consluonsy of the recent acts Of is
April IL 1853 chap 2l7 fur her amending the charter Of
the city Of New York. originated In the Bard Of Council
Aldermen Tor concurrence A thus pas Cd by
the Counciimcn, the sum appropriated was - 900,
snS me o,w pospse 70 Se'sn SS money
charges Of the additional counsel 70 be associated the
Counsel 70 the Corporation, pursuant 70 The solutions
creas,Dg the roprsson 10 $40 00o and by adding
tho lat clause OF the last resolution In the following
Words
or suits which s.ys been commenced or nay her.sr be
Of ne - f ,ss ss
And 'hDs .msndea, tho rcsola,lous were passed
BY the BoId Of Aldermen, The amendments we're
sod the resolutions were approved by The Mayor
The present motion for such modification OF Shc In
Junction Rinaly ssued In THU 10 permit the pay
Of the charges OF the additional counsel TO be
employed ~ the Counsel for the Corporation. But no
application made for the entire dssoluon Of the ojdnc
tiop. Tor such modification OF 10 shall tho
OF any for the ~ defrayng the
e>Isn-es o any of the suits mentioned In the amendment,
." the resolution Tncse suits, sufficiently
present mo'iop instituted or conducted by
under the direction of the Counsel 10 the Corporation,
by the direction Of The Common Council but ndspend
employed BY the city, or In aoy way reseon-
siple 10 u for the manner in which hoy shall per-
tcrm their outies. II the city authorities thus
aseume aefray expense- of these suits no, SEQ
by they may not the for every which NAV
he prosecuted or deended ny CT zn n The city
COUNTY In the II which be e. Council
clare has tho city has have any interest SDce
disewsns the nt notion IN his case he question ~ tho
hsry OF the CITY " New rk for tho expenses u sus
at law involving ir Interests but not conducted
ny or under tho control of fts counsel. the
proper head Of is law oepar ment oas been
hy tn.tir Tnux-u In h. nf IA
the Mayor. &c, OF New York, reported In 9th
Aeoo't 3a2 The principles established 10 that case
clearly snow that The Common Council cannot DO what
they have under'aken u do by the amendment mad, IN
the resouiin by h- Beard " Aldermen Il N sufficient
here TO refer TO the convincing scuss'on II The 20 Mt In
that cae I entertain donht that the corporation OF
New York ro Lgay liable for of the expenses
o any Of the su mentioned In these revolutions finally
passed and sha being liable they
insm, and sprropriase money 70 pay them than taey
coud 30 the same ~ 70 any other s the Msyov had
esca.nn srhsr 20 bring or n defend Indeed, .se
'pcnrred by the say~ by of The
mencemep' of The suits referred 70 The resolution,
the moneys Of ,hs city. They may equally ~eIl assume
IN pay any and every Other ocer Of Corporsiou
O any inh.hns,t Of ths county .s apop hi. vis.,
the ssyor 3d. of New YORK. thAs he present meson
made for the dssouuos but for the modification NJ
tho inrction did understand Tho counsel for the
oel.p1sne IN deny that This appropriation
lar ~ purports tn an'horise the payment Of any
Iart Of the ,um apr oprised TO the der.yine Of the
ny the MAYOR, contrary to Law and vuad he coofends
to~cyer, that the othev purpee OF the appropriation
legally vshd and that the Court ought not " restrain the
LAY mepi OF the money thus appropriated ~ that obtc
op he rsr, Of The pairtG II s conepded that the a,o
ws'icp being n sum in sro.s TO several Objects some
Of bich are bad, cannot he apIortioncd. u cannot
stand appropriation OF $1,000 70 such ono or more
. the cti,cts referred To ~ may be deemed lawful
Ths l--itiop resens the main ones lion In the cAse
~ vhsn stripped ~ all exr<neous ruafer simple one,
snc may be thus stated Where's legislative holy, OF
lu''sd powers, attempts TO accomp by sosis eoact
MAI "a Ill Of ht.h a. Kin And
the other J. h.y oud its IUwtrs the act sought be douc
void ~ hc vhoe only M far ~ II exccsoe the powers
ccEferred ON the legislatures. attended on tho
merit ~ The cer udsn's ,e IN Judgment
he rtou ccrrect that the rules ~ sppli
cable CO. r n'erpr, aicn Of should be applied 10
these esoutious and that hbers sbould no
a6cyd and vhcb would rather uphold than mako VOID
The .t un,nt pfolounoed for examination The may
be, therefore. properiy tesiet n a statute Of ihs
STATE the obi, ct Of discussion IT, thsn, the State
Leetlsare sho ID, by srsIe provision of law a,pro
pr ate sum ~ msney IN th- payment without dis
ctininaiitn 81 tso different Glasses ~ expenditure,
4 which legal ane vsi the other u uncousu
tuCf a. and vo'd would the he gai 10 ,art And void