New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-07-24


READY shown, Judge Peabody acted only as a Com.
missioner in o special aud summary proceeding.
= 1t does NOT set forth the title OF Conover to the
office Of Street Commissioner, but merely alleges that
he was duly appointed and commissioned"
j. 1t does not appear from the warrant Justice
Peabody adjudged that any books or papers of the
Office Of Street Commissioner came to the hands of
Deyln. Buff, by any means il could be held tina
such an adjudication is stated ia thewaant it is clear
that il is not alleged to have been determined that
euch books or papers came to De possession dur
ing vacancy in the office, or before the proceeding
before Justice Peabody commenced; or that such
books and papers were before that time demanded OF
Dcvlin. tBennac va the People, Barb. habeas
4. The warrant il general as to books and papers,
and neither that any paper before Justice
Peabody specifies any books papers. Such gene
raj warrant void See Bill Of Rights r. s., lst vol,
4. Mr.. Field will reply to Sickles to-day.
SUPREME CoURT-srreAL TrRm-Juty 2s-Before Judge
BIRDsEYE.
APPLICATION FOR cERTIoRAsI AGAINST THE POLICE
COMMISSIONERS.
Richard Gambling a Jacob CHOW ell ct AL Commissioners of
Gambling applies for the allowance of a common
law eeroIsr for the purpose of reviewing the pro-.
ceedngs of the Board of Police Commits sioners estab
Ished under the act of April Is, 1857. He alleges
those proceedings to have been irregular, improper
without authority, and without jurisdiction. 1t is not
necessary TO decide whether the acts of the Com
missioners of Police be reviewed in the manner
sought TO be adopted. If any power exists to review
the acts of the C0mmssio in this manner
the power must have exited to review the acts
of the Commissioners created by the " Act in
" relation to the Police Of the City of New-York,"
passed April 49, 1853. But so far as my knowledge ex-
& eds this is the fret Instance in which such course
has been adopted for supervising the action Of
either Board of Police Commissioners or Of any Off
GERS who invested with the government Of the
police. Without passing on the question of power
unwilling to allow the certiorarI applied for The
allowance Of this writ is not matter of right. 1t
rests in the sound discretion of the Court 1t has often
been denied when the power TO issue the writ
questionable, and where there apparent error in
the proceeding to be reviewed. If the writ has been
improperly awarded 1t may be quashed even after a
return and hearing on the merits. Where the writ will
operate as public Inconvenience, it should not be
granted (See The People VS.. The Mayor, &c., of New
York, HILL g. Ia the matter of Mount Morris square,
ID. IA. The People The Supervisors of Allegheny,
IS Wendell, 1873. Munro va. Baker, 6 Cowen, 1896 The
People We. The Supervisors OF Queens Hill 1875. The
People The Mayor, &c, OF New-York, AZ, 49,
1t would certainly be matter of grave public in.
coBve nence both 80 far this Court and tine sutos
in it, and the Police Commissioners, and the important
public interests committed to them concerned, if,
by the of the writ of cerorar this Court is 10 be
required to review all the decisions of those Commits
sioners, in removing from Office the men under their
command. Before taking any step tending to such
result the Court must be fully satisfied Of the exist
only of the error, but of an urgent necessity
for thus intervening to correct it. The practice of the
Court has long been conformed to this obvious prn-
ciple. In the case of the People the Supervisors
Of Queens ubi supra il was held that the party
sgair.t whom tire writ was applied for had
a right to read opposing affdavts the
motion for the writ. And in Munro VS.. Baker
(a6, SUPRA this Court set aside cerorari asirreguar
Which mad issued without notice and without cause
shown by affidavit They said that cause must
be showr in all where certiorari is brought
to review the proceedings of an inferior jurisdiction
for 1t Is never of course except where it is
susd out by the people. II 1t were Otherwise We
State before u.s." The consequences OF intervening
in Glars OF ike the present. except Tor the most
urgent and satisfactory reasons are such as to induce
caution in breaking down established safeguards.
The application for the writ is denied; but as reasons
may exist OF sufficient strength to warrant tue utter
position of the Court such denial must be without
prejudice TO the petitioner right to renew the appca
fon notice TO the Commissioners OF the Police, and
on serving them with copies of the aidav's on which
thu VIII, Is applied for Az they are charged with the
peIiorpsoce OF public duties, they should have full
notice Of the motion and al order TO show cause
should act be granted, as 10 deprive them of the
benefit If the rule emitting them to eight days notice
cHEvALIER wIKoYF SUED FOR LIBEL.
LssEs vannod sgt. Henry Wikof and James G. Derby.
This is action i'll which the plaintiff claims
$4,000 damages against the Chevalier Wikoif and
his P0bisher for alleged libel contained in " My
"Courlship and its Consequences" which has gone
through several editions in this country and in Europe.
The plaintiff the courier of Miss Gamble at the
time of her hiItations with the Chevalier.
The ibelous matter complained Of is contained in
the following extract from the complaint:
Thank you siri yo9 may rely me" he tneaning the
said piaints) said, with earhestness 81 will be very stten
tiVer-
Ye ard take you neanins the plaintiH) don't get
thereby intending to impute to the said plaintiff that
he gas in the habit OF becoming drunk
That was only accident Sir" he (meanns the said PLAZA
tit answered, turning Ted
Vber nv the said defendant intended aud desired to
have il by the persons who would read the
,aid book entitled aforesaid, aud which contained
"a oow contains the said hoel1us matter, that the
said osntf bad been nebriated, that his turning red
yas tacit admission OF the false accuS aOn, aud that
fber. by he said plaintiff had failed In faithfully DIS
charei,g his duties courier Tor the aforesaid Miss
Gamble.
Plaintiff further avers that in another part OF said
l;bel there was and is contained the following false,
seandaous malicious aud deiamst0ry mater, 10 wit:
Aud il yoV DO your duty to set yos up in the
Yaur words enough sn said the courier (uesns the
ssid plsisiiHD, passing bis hsrd sIousd he bat ,-,
something Ia the Of his eye before oced,
that inciigated just the contrary % what be eaid
Thereby meaning that the said plaintiff was kaave,
ana an artfol, decenal and dishonest person, tnd
faiihless courier
And the said false and libelous matter continues i'm
,oedisteiy thereafter follows
lmesniug DESCENDANT vikof) sst down iDKenty in the
~a YooIa eeiysd hi aud Obligation that
IN, soos, Aad faithfully periortRed his duty his mt
ares. that would In se married her make hla gtt
and the plaintiff further AYERS that said LAD men
toned part Of said libel continues ia the words f3IlJg-
Ing Of the foot Of page Isl OF said book enthed as
sf0ressid, 10 wit: "
"a "a urornsed the courier (paptit mesoi1g excessive
AID attributed in part T. the excitement under xheh
then l.bored could however siye other reasons 70.
toucbng eou,ers scsning psntis of Miss
GGobls. which might b. Offensive 70 her 70 state aud
tbeIeisae suppress them" n,,
ri hat tha a.