New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-09-15

Il 49, l. vx..,,
so"g on ssoins' Tie people, was q nish PnNhege 10
T.::!
Ahe ANTICIPATION WE INA. MI. fieid would argue th'
I Gaze in beau OF DIR. Lowee', after which Dir. Whit
$500 ,.nlv. Mr.. Whiting. however. was mr.,
- fran q ., argument by Mr. Field decnisg I,
.s.ms The c,.n-h. 70. 'ertng himself by submitting
e
| his points az fo,ows:
E.:,,, IT, c b., "a ,,.1t =; .-sA.,, 20 v,oste, moi
cfihs p..s The sn !stiS els.
% ..s n. a,bs, and he De h,as en,
an s.eaon .~a,dsd the qnGSn RI
parties .t ,s% 'r can ssa
peSaon. vbo have nev., ese1 seios. toe CouT'
resuay the application Of third person.
corporation treated like any ellen, and party il
can he beard and the acts Of that bind il in ts
relations With the adverse party 1t repudis,r the
tTsnsaon oft. agents hsn private his. in it.
ENJOY.
c,e modify suspend judsnen. novel; and prrpoer
S, T. move, ?, may , %.s %So mn, neE be might
should this e,pe succeed shall payers
apes. and engaged for the city dsscen, in
ability ZEAL asking to the prosecution defense upon
| themselves
tax payer In the affairs Of the city has been allowed
ard ali other tax payer. the city and other ps. Sd
dressing m.s 70 the Equitable pOTsI. Of the Court pre-
that there h., breach Of trust tb, case he bey
| 10 bring bi. seton
eenigd But there are otSs reasons WHICH, should cause 70
| viii be stated In the points which follow. wy '
Str The fI Of these s..OP. that the city has 'ready
Serrnh No new defense l. suggested which VS..
SOns5 and s.shS tn BY
the Controller in hi. communicative Council il
MIR Brown on the 18th Of Marh weeI before the action wa,
TosM II the ,i,b n ,ons. Ia. beep lost, the fult /. GER
tainy not the plaintiff Written notice Of the IIdsFsn, was
IssuIsiiy seivso, nntofna, on Vas gwen 70 ~ e ~
Ninth The Court power permit. appeal
10 open .he Kanen IA ~ '"o
H. .1e ba co mad had the DO ~. to let them
the should be denied there ore no ne nnt b
snv e.ist.d he judgment was ,sht and the plaintiff
entitled to hi. money H. and N. III, f., the .s
Of the property was fairly entered into Prop1s: were 10;
fiea Dy .s Nj L0NOe' HAUL tue 0o' '"'' ~"
The eontsct was binding The city had the power 10
The price which Mr. Lowber asked and which the city
agreed to siye wss reasonable The tetmSny Of Orare
bell Edwin BOnon and fets Cooper on TINS pom. Is s
b en- about il April 1851 that act settled tue
question The certificate of Charles VCoIor William Curtis
NJ Barbour ought to remove any doubt.
Ern Such are the under which the Con-
plaintiff but the Common Coupc Of the city and the Coun
Of the and ask. that there shall be perpetual
perpetual stay execution would be perpetual injustice
tSe'isht Of appeal. -, n,-I'-.,.,
j. Shall then there be- new ra by whonstns ne" nA
oers But wis. right has the CONTROLLER to conduct
legal ssrs of the city The law Of the State the new
Charter passed the 18th Of last April declares Laws 1871
p. 1872 l that the Law Department over which the
counsel the Corporation presids shall have charge OF and
conduct all the law business OF the corporation"
Inc Controller ana me ooiPDfetlo Coule' are po
to removal by the Governor only . ;.n. - -. .e,;,. s
TIE controller mas no noe gnu 10 IN s s .,
W., ,hho Coa,'ti 'r"" '"0 N' ~ " " WIZ
Both cannot defend the sn for they disagree as to the de-
Shall the Court then put in the Controller and dispaee the
Council Can do that in the lace me sLa sssns the
VII 1i 'he 'o"AN'" "'"N''' '"' ''e'' N'f w.
otS. &, ,, - M, Oh. uvo, conn, :, alan and a., N
Du. ~ oopu @ b ' d;g,, With the Con,,aiIsr and
Intervene fssioy ne a , Win . ,S Co
w. SOC that the Slsntins of mi. motion will lead 10 in
hne No. evidence of eu,ou between III. plaintiff and
defendant.
md The plsinta sned for the enforceant of the IN
tract
the suit real si,o.
Ill There evidence that the defendants have been be-
trayed by counsel The plant put into Mr. Bu.
On the 10Th be wrote Fsas asking information about
a defense.
He himsefmpposed there was no e,ens was ne oo9na
Mr. Flags sppesr 70 have been ihe only Chcsf o. sn
ofs engagements The put into his hands He
dictated and TO the answer he de'snated the counsel
who was to support the answer me eaa Wa 'ned ana "
not in the That was deliberately put in
upon Fsess dtsop after So days had elapsed from tue
The fault was the trial The defense presented by
the required no testimony and ne
presehed his oral Argument ana le snouI oe s. .ua ne
prepare sne submit written points.
Was the fault in not appealing so was not MI Bus
teeds fault for two reasons,
and could not have been expected to sppe h
motion. ...,.,,,. ~ d.. AMMAN,
Mr. Flag informed OF the Judgment early the I'D oil