New-York daily tribune., 1857-09-29

!! /. ori,fa ia v,e ,ua sacna ts ,,n -
The .'nc :. bee BY SO a',ae ind ya'.tJ s-sr & -e 1
scn5n Dtepsed % tle sd Corporation Cuhss ne Aa t.'
~ the oTJsS of sr.S %
toe sa r~Pott sad s snett ss.wct ia te ,Aa s'a oe
10 ,epOvc BY the sad coa'. - bc iorpo.ed sas h,ed
N I.u O ite PreJss .a,vef vn.e,. the So! CSsI;r
and eorPors:or o'hS~is- on ocsas ot
hr-se ard oth-s 70 tie orz coarsn. lsttinf orr
10 tae rrsnises be uisy be alyses.
4. i, unGsr.tocd tcst tie above order will be i'm
medistey sppssled rom.
rnE cnSTRAL PARK REssrvoIr-rHr sAsD,aUs
AGAINST rRr CRoros BOARD.
Bsfor. Jsdss PF.sopr.
Dinsnere sst The Cro.on Aqueduc Board
This case which is an spolcat;On FOE 8 oi sndsnus
sgaiast the Crotoa Bos,d requiring them to resclnd
ttcir decision rejecting MesTs. Wood & Dnsuorss BID
r the &C rVotop Of the new reservoir 10 the Centrs
Pax. came for hearing this morning The tsca Is
stated by council were that some time since the Gro
tca Aoueduct Board advertised Tor bids for the work
of cors'ructirg the reaervoir An estimate IS
pu, in by the realtors Offering to do The work Tor some
i've hur t!ed and cdd thousand dosrs, ard their esti
s.e proved, opening the bids, to be lower tnsn
al y other. The estimate was. however reiseted for
intoymality in two respects-,n not being yer'hed.
This estimate was verified by the oath 10 writing OF
Dinvnore, but was not verified by the oath OF Wood
The estimate contained recital at its oonmencs-
nent in these words:
d" Made BY John NJ Wood Of tho County ot Cnmberlaud
State Of Main. aud s.mn. 2 Dn,gO,, Of y. q seventh
nsms snd style Of Diu.nlore Wood j. Co"
The estiu ate aimed declaration, in these words
I'VE said Wood Di. .rs u. osy p.'S. %;.S..,.$
hs insrs in this estimate or IN the contract proposed 10
The estimate was signed "Ssmuel p. Dnsnore,
81 NJ Wood Dinsmore Wood e Co."
The various estimates for the contract were publicly
opened on the Goth Of August, 1857, Mr.. Dinsmoro
being present. 1t was on that dsy observed BY some
% ard fbst fha al na W
not verified by the affidavit of " o0d aud the estimate
was bv the Controller, in the hearing Of the Board.
directed be pced the informal lis. on account Of hs cit
and The aidavits are IN dispute " to 1se:hef aud
what %annes "" M 70 10 a'i .as S0'fa
On August 9TH the Board again met for the purpose of
signed Dip.nOrr Wood Co.." in addition 10 the individual
signatures of the bidders.
Board udsed the esmate defective aud how fully
the opinion Of tho Board communicated to Mr. Oinsmor
TIA. the subject Whatever had be-
the Board and Wood That no %rten com
the Board Dsnor- fro wheh he understood
that the BO: bad at decided 10 ess the q" ~. Ss
VS.. ever BY the Board Dnsnore inviting correction
OF the error, relied on ction
III. contrary 20 far as he spplod the opinion
Board tie always represented being 10 ths
judgment Of The Board errors OF substance" in which no coec
Mr Benjamin " abbott ,r,ued behalf res.or
l. The only piovons Of aw applicable 70 hi. To.
following Section iss OF the ordinance Of M, 80 1919 which
requires estste fer contract TO be verified by the oath
In writing. of the party the that the several mat
sa.d taerea arc Ia az Fs;pece. tsas ss9a ool for
,ided person making the estimate shs correct
% aHa , na-f hour, IN . ac @f's % sS
The OF 1853 q Rev sts ed Cs 9t2, provides that
S :esss S. . 1 cH sas
84 provides that th shall net apply commercial
IL T. not Necessary .ha, the ,tinso shoad be verified by
weu 3, BY DsmOre. The affidavit of Dn, alone
scribe. That the estipste shs be verified BY The cath
party aDd make, no provision for where an esti%.e 10
requires wur to be verified By the oath Of person.
s sst's'd % IN ss :1s s s'ts
creditor the debtor" &c s direction is satisfied there
'Te ' SG'D d that % oSS vey ee sso
plaintiffs Of defcndsnts OF wo psrtes vefes the insru'
mcE hs verified ly he p.ltia BY he defendant, by ,.e
party &C. This rule may be aedrced from ,ae practice which
Ys1 with 35s and prsvs:y Appess As5C,e' r r. lSs
2oe sis 89 AID 90 Gis az; 's so Laws of 1881 H.
iii Th. u.e Of tho phrase Dn.morr, Wood Co.. i. no
defect in the estimate The actsf 1912 q R,7 Stat. ed
counre, provisions Of the act OF 8 Now Maine
foreign unity whlu the meaning of provision And
Maine the Count win presume thI. Msoe 6ru rather
than indulge pesump that New York firm aud thus
mt.nor .' end nd @uct the CITY G -; treasury in .o%~ 5000
There violation Of the STATUTE even II we're shown that
the New orb firm for the e,tim,ie frankly shows
urde OATH that third Interested with the two spe1
sn Tarr then DO % I 40 % stamp g sI iga 70.
prevent How shall the Court venture to
the papers that there firm composed Of Dnsmore Wood
and partner IN whose the estimated for win
done such private the partners
third partner will have ntere. In the contract
7here has "trsnsscon Of business in .he Of
Wood Co. That phrase may 6e struck out ss .arPuass yet
viii leave good estimate by Dpsnore and Wood indiydu
ally The REALTORS do not rely in way on the m snure
nci the e,tnste "a an act or transaction Of the frm
oTm merely std oorectabe under section O OF the
Ordrance Of 1872 The d.tnStion betweeo form aud .uosac:
may be stated two wsys Standing the psee Of toe Board
may define Il thus AL that eistss the ends which are 20
e ne :, rhisb bo soSs sss =. o.
sccomp hed after Of fosm merely Or putting ourseve,n
tsLd point. may phrase the principle thus All those
Of TIT estimate which enter INTO the oher hch the
only the mode and by which
his oer communicated to the Board formal Thur i 10
Of any error the cstmnte which does affect the contract
Of the ends be By it, error
70 be STAINED entitled respect
alter mich he has made to the Board but he hsA
gccs % NE m,nper only and not to the oder Itself he
enlisted to eSrreet "a. detect Tns % estimate .uRc.'
to make the application signed m h. c~n psar s.on.
ts. estsd With him IL the bid Suppose
mate to BE- verified IS the Pre.en o pa'oe % @ aons
the beref. Of both Dinsmore and Wood.
20 Dpmcre Su. rome to Wood who wa.tGs person sons
od mske the correction On fair application OF the rule
that notre required b. given eza roedns must be
notice. the reators entitled 10 written notice
Lar ss Curry l9 Barb ST. s. The notice 10 relied On as the
Ia. Of forfeiture the REALTORS therefore entitled 10
tbs term notice" in The mos. favorable anEer 10
SECURE their right Ole of Webters definitions h paper
which communicates information" The notice should esse
been Of defnite and final decision by thr Board The
notice should have oonteup sted oorecton not one
Mr. Richard Busted followed on behalf OF the Cro-
tor Board, in an elaborate argument founded on the
point. pubsbed in TaE TRIsssE OF Saturday. AT
the ctse of his address, the Court adjourned the cass
TO Tuesdsy ct O'Clock. The argument viii then 6e
continued BY David Dudley Field, esa, for tho
eo,r retinn hidders and By Con. James W. Nye for