The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-08-01
the STREET COMMISSIONER DIFFICULTY.
THE INJUNCTION RESPECTING THE BOOK
corsr or COMMON PLEAS.
pesore Judxe Ingraham

corRr OF COMMON PLEAS.
Before Judge Ingraham.
Jr,vsl-7ne Mayor, Aldermen and Commonal;y Of the
en-, ~ y1D Tsrk rs Daniel d. Obnoper, Charles Deuim
james wlgaz, shelg, John r, harrington, David D.
Md and Henry BertaoV-Tnis was q motion for In
Junction restrain The defendants from interfering with
the books OF the street Commissioners Department
ARGUMENT OF DANIEL n scSLEs, HsQ
May it please the Court-we move continue the in
junction In the upon the original bill Of complaint and
also upon the supplemental complaint.
Mr.. Fed-There Is a cross motion, which will be argued
s., the tame time upon our part, 10 dissolve it
Mr.. Sckes-Yes
Mr., Noyes-Yoa bring on also th motion against the
other parteeS
Mr., Sckee-Yes upon the original bill Of complaint and
the supplemental bill Of plant The original bill Of
complaint filed the 18th Of July inst, against Como
puncion order issued restraining Conover from In
tererng any With the books and papers OF the
Street Commissioners office; restraining wlea the She
I, likewise from executing any process, or dorg any
ether interfering with the books and papers OF the
office and restraining Devlin from delivering to any per-
sou the books and pArers Of the oce The supple mental
complaint embrs three parties whom have named
and includes also John r. Harrington, one OF the
tonsabes of the city, David ID Field, Esq and Henry
Eertho the officer 70 whom Judge Peabody connded the
hooks and papers that were brought before him The
original bill Of complaint sets forth all the circum stances
end events In reference this controversy which had
sisnspred up 10 the 18th inst The supplemental CO
apt forth the events OF the morning Of the 18th
lore Mr. Justice Peabody the issuing of the warrants the
portion OF them from the office In The pre-
senos Of M. Justice I Peabody, ..,s and til, the
lary the part taken in each d those events By hs respes
tive defendants The papers on the psr Of the plaintiffs,
SOre Disclose IN rssasd q the and
papers OF public office of the corporaton-an Office OF
grea, Importance to the well being eahe Inhabitants Of
this city The Street Commissioners sde parment Is one
which Ia concerned directly or indreck the expendi
ture OF very large sums q money, and the prosecution
public represented BY the oofpsse authorities
come into this court and ask its intervention,
alleging that the public interests are eopardzsd oy the
Of parties and their agents. who are engaged In con
troversy for the occupancy OF public office usually Ia
the In controversies In reference 10 public offices that
cher party or parties claiming TO be officers de u-e
but this presents pecuarty unusual In these con
trove sizes Bob conover and De'ln claim to be Street
Street Commissioner de dco Both claim TO be in the &C
tuA and rehifu exercise Of all functions aud powers Of
the oc that would seem that here are two pc nsons
claiming to act the sgens OF the Corporation In the
transaction of the business OF this depart ment IN giving
directions to workmen, 10 directing the improvements
making OF ,nrscs which properly emAnste from tnN de
partment, and crsatpg therefore, double set Of hao
and subject the CITY great inconvenience,
and serious and rreparabe loss and damage
70 the public the public should have to ID and
the rghtiu place where they should be located the
apartment designated by the Corporation for the Street
Commissioner In the next place. the maps &c, are the
private property Corporation OF city, though for
the time being they In the occupancy OF the Street
who holds them the necessary duties of
the office, and the public, who have right or access to
them. is apparent that these two parties canno!
at the same time have control over these books Il is
very obvious that they cannot both have OF the
Office a the same time, and II 10 necessary for this court
for the election OF the public interests 10 prevent an IRE
parable injury 70 the city.
Mr. sckes then sub nit ed the following polnt,:-
The jurisdiction Of equity 70 restrain an interference
with particular chaels is founded on the nature OF the
damage In all Of writings having specific and pc
cuar value the principle o. irreparable damage applies
Jeremy Equity Jurisdiction, part ch 4, sec 2 says:
Whenever the article ha' such specR value that SIT
Is probable that adequate compensation by way of do
ases would net be given by ja,y euiiy VIII give re-
s story e. jpn Os no = pso1I !,
9torys Eq. Jur, sec 7c3.
IL Perhaps equity ought not commonly 10 interfere u
because tue party possession may resist BY force But
where process Of judicial officer about 10 be used tc
sanction The sc and resO,y "a s Cua
motion by such process, injunction highly proper
i. The Sheriff or constable may be justified by the pro
though on the prior pArs Of the record should ap
pear that the tribunal had Jurisdiction (ravocoo VS.
Houghton, Wend
q ssch sheriff. with Q process regular upon It's face
arm rightly put dow all Opposition
Ill The duty TO resist trespass BY force cannot b
charged upon municipal corporation. II can only act oJ
agents, and such agents may not be willing 70 incur tht
rnk Of o conflict.
ole justice administered by means Of the process Of In
Junction
says Equity viii protect the enjoy men OF specific chat
tells which cannot be subject OF compensation In dana
ges" And zee bis note l 10 the same page
v. The council Who prosecuting an unlawful proceed
ing for client insists and publicly promulgs,se the
trire that Dot named defendant In the iniunc
zion s affected by II, must De included s party.
BE Mr Sckes proceeded 10 that there has as yet
been no judicial decision which OF these parties ~
right this Office and Is impossible 10 foreses what
ed TO- as has been before party been elected by
force and this may be az Indication OF wha, possible
not probable The property being ihs OF the Corporation
they are entitled 10 II in order tina, their ofhcer Mr.
Devn may put In possession OF the books ~ for the
necessary performance OF the duties Of his Office rni'
forms additional rea'on WIN an injunction Ia appica.
bic 70 th, We contend tina, the process which To-
teered with the possession OF these books has emanaed
from tribuns which bad no right 70 issue IL II IL th
and proper therefore, that court OF equity should inter
fere and prevent the esps Of inferior t ouna Nth
Jurisdiction. Mr. sickles cited several CASE in sop
port of his views and commended that the Corpora ion ba
no other remedy-no other mode OF obtaining relief except
by the process OF Injunction An action OF uovei
or replevin would rot he suhcient, because &c
acton for damages would compensate the city for the
injury sustained and mat the only remedy they hal bJ
injunction which would protect the city In lis rights wh
the controversy going On between those two la nrt
In the public courts The occupancy Of the office no
Seres 10 The public TO who the In mmben s, provided
the duties be properly performed and The city ask. III
person sha be permued by or violence 70 10
terfere modest the property. Ose Of the eeentans
this mar has appeared and cont oued TO appear as tn
than include him (h Feid) In the I'M uncten. We wou
have preferred state Of Thugs that would have exc ise
us from including him but II Ia usual for counsel 70 re
fsp when they knor OF the existence Of an n melton
from interfering; II las been usual for them 10 advs
obederc 10 the process OF the law because they are
In fact, officers OF the court, and should obey, an
counsel obedience and submission 10 lis mandate. B.
vh.n q counsel iak,s the hign ground that he IL no
included In the process, because be has not bee
personally served, justified 10 including him Il
the supplemental process, for the purpose OF preventing
Injury 70 the property OF the plsp'ins
ns' REPtIE.
Mr. W. G Noyes, In reply, commenced by wing bis
cory Of the case which be did from the various papers
adsve slreaty publishes. Mr. Cooover vas 10 posses
s.ou n the ONCE before Mr.. DevlIn appointed
was thrus, out and Mr. Devn pu' in manual posses
sou OF the ONCE he then detailed scdti the diherer
suis arising OF the controversy and eat the latte
part Of Judge Rsoseves decision In denying the motto
for an ipunct m against Copover. Mr. Noycs merit res
largely from the complaint and supplemental complaint
The present complaint He said that the reason this Ia
junction ~sed for that rreparabe injury vii arise
The city.
M sickles- One Of the reasons
Nj. Noye-And II 10 aug tested that the Courts have M
declared either Me- Devhn Mr. Conover as the rgbuC