New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-05-06
THE POLICE CONTEST,
Judge Roosevslts Function Dissolved.
THE QUO wARRANTo PARlAL.tY ARGUED.

SUPREME coURT-srtcr.L TsrN-MAv S-Be tsre Jai
The People er rel Ferrsndo WOOD .r. siuAp On, Z,
| etbers
| The complaint of the piaintT in this ca>e. bv n
AttorneyGenerai states that at the time of the pas
sage Of pretended act Of the Legislature Of this State
entitled An act TO establish Metropolitan p, lie,
District and to provide for the government thereof
the 18th Of April 1857. the Office Of Police Com
missioner was public civil Office IN the CITY of New
York, and that the Office of head Of said Poh De-
parmen and is public civil Office belonging 10
the Office Of Mayor of said city, Ac-snd that after
that time ON the I'D Of April 1851 the defendants. as
pretended Board Of Police under said pretended act
without legal warrant, intruded irso and vsurped
offices Of Police Commissioners and heads of the Police
De ,arnert &c, from thenceforth exercised said
Cfce Of Police Commissioners and head of Police De-
paTtnent and also all the powers which before the
passage II said pretended act, conferred upon
said BE ard of Commissioners of Police and upon the
Mayor &C., &c. as the head of police and which re-
late TO connected with the police government
appointments and discipline within said city, &C. and
sin DO usurp and exercise said Offices and all the
power and authority, &C., &c. i'll violation of the Con-
stu.ion and laws Of said State and plaintiffs pray
the defendants may show by what warrant they claim
10 hold and use said Offices aud they demand Judgment
against defendants that each Of them be busted from
the power and authority aforesaid and that said rela
tor be declared entitled 20 hold aud exercise all the
power and rights of said Police Commissioner and
member If said Board Of Police Commissioners &c.
&C. he OF right ought to do under the laws of the
State existing and il force at the time irst above
mentioned.
There is also before the Court an affidavit Of the re-
laor to the effect that he is actually Mayor of the city
and that by virtue OF various acts, he IL and has been
head anG Chief Executive of the Police Department,
and Ms such has custody and control OF large
amount and number vi station-houses telegraph APP
psretus books and other property, real and personal
used for the Police Department; and also has the
chs-cs and direction of the whole police force and
corps Of about twelve hundred men.
That defendants have organized Us Metropolitan
Police Commission, under said act That deponent
has been advised said act is unconstitutional and void
that he has been instructed by the Common Council
TO resist all action Of the Police Commissioners, by
an ordinance to that effect and unless said Commas
ii. hers are eBoined from proceeding under said act
and from asserting power said police force or the
property II the Department the most serious conse-
quences may to the peace of the city; and that
it is necessary to the rights of deponent aud to the
good order Oi the city, that said Commissioners be en-
joined until decision can be bad in the suit.
On these papers order has been made by JUS
tee of this Cont restraining defendants from exercs
ng any OF the functions Of Police Commissioners, until
the further order Of the Court.
On these papers and including said order, an aida-
vii Of defendants that they have been seyerally nom
mated by the Governor, and with the consent of the
Senate, appointed Commissioners under snri act and
that they have taken the Oaths Of office and have the
proper certificates of office, and that they have met
and orgaazed Board aud that great and IRENE
diabc injury will be done by the continuance Of the
PENDANTS ara in office and by the terms of the laws set
nth in said complaint the moment these defendants
take office oil previous heads of poire abolished;
and that the funds for the support ot police govern
ment will be devoted alone to the support OF the pro-
vi,ions If tire law under which the defendants hold
tfice by the fseal officers having charge OF thenh
TIE defendants move 10 dissolve the injunction.
Mr., Noyes Mr. +. B. Cutting, Mr.. ". Ill., jr., Mr..
Van Cott. Mr.. Field, Mr.. Yanderpoe aud Mr.. E,arts,
on behalf of defendants anu for motion. Mr.. COnor,
Judge Edmonds andi Thee. Sedgwck for plaintiffs
ard opposed to motion.
PEiBspY Justice.-In this case, wl1irh is in SUBJ
action to determine the rights oithe defend
ants TO Offices into which they have entered, the
plaintiffs rely on tie sSsity Of the lac under which
aegc tia. The statrte by virtue of whish the defend
ants claim hat they hold the Offices Ii IN conflict
with the Constitution Of the State, Fad; therefore,
10 that effect. and ha. the defendants be ousted there
from. ,.,.
This Is the ultimate relief sPnGn, Il Iii: asil, and
f. thew aver ], is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
They also seek, hoHever, the immedlste aid OF
temporary Injunction, by which defendants shan be
retrsiped from exercising any of the functions OF thei
Offices pending tho litigation and until the decision
Of the question as the validity of the law Hnder
which they claim 10 hold. :,
To this end they have presented Their application to
Justice Of thi. Court lex parte as . our praGtre,
who after hearing counsel on behalf ~ the appAca
ticn has made order restraining defendants from
exercising the rights or performing the duties peFtan-
This order the defendants now move to yaeats, and
fLey urge their motion several gDuDds:
First: That the claim of plaintiffs that the law Il
unconstitutional is not well founded, but that II IL,
on the contrary consistent with the Constitution and
valid.
SccoDd. That The remedy by intaetion in an action
Of this kind is not authorized by law in any case.
Third: That if an injunction CAP issue ut Nil IN an
action of this kind, the facts showh III ts case are NOT
sufficient to Warmth.
The first pround embraces the principal question at
ssue and TO be determined in ths sut-the eonstitu-
ticralty of the laW-and inasnieh as thet question
will very shortly come before thus Court ar decision
on the argument Of the whole case made the PLAIN
ts il is quite proper that should refrain trOm pass
ING up,u il now uness il shalt become necessary Tor
me 10 do 80 in deciding this moson:
TIE second ground ON which this metSn IS put Is
one which relates to practices and ha'ins no bearing
the general proposition on ninch I w. w.
ANYTHING by which that will DC afsctec. >,
l. the relief by Injunction allowed ID an action cs
quo rarraat0 by cur practice IN any c1xe A..
That there is no precedent TOR lt1a ~ acton VI ~
kind is admitted all halds hW ileS'ns soy 90
,b absence Of precedert furnishes btre ground t9R
an argument against tbsg pOstoSl That ~ Is cay
accounted for in a manner not lpclnssient WIN .Si
claim that il is now a legitimate rsInsay' anu
true as argued by them, that pri'so he NM nm ~ t
Constitution Of lSi6 the only Coarts III when % ~
ton Of this kind could b brought. Hefe courts SAs5
only eommon-law powers, and hence no CouI. he' a,,s
cugniZaQce Of such suit couia vhnHni''.,i ~ -
sively equitable relief of ipjaDcS'sS- Ane sr
true that until the time oil 'sA CoI1 -. and de-
1915 suits Of this kind were sisssed srnof ano uo,
nominated criminal rather thah elHn renn9es, CIV
Courts Of equity had gene TX rue on reila
Interference in criminal matters nelehS --S onn
constituted has ~ chaneery any M. init sr
law powers, and having possession % - ;nnc,;n.
general purposes c,,n aid 1he Plalntis py ~ 60
Il thew are entitled 10 t6at aid; ana SIT lne
WEE. into effect ls4S ais OF this KIM hSlu