New-York daily tribune., 1858-10-12

not that the objections to an application or rath.,
m,sspphce',cu, of The public funds are a, ali weak.
cued by that fact.
II tie defendants had no authority 10 Use tho t,.,
80 collected by tax to pay the debt before adsmcnt
tley Rad DO Authority 20 use IL for that pnrnors -.
judgment: ana II the law does not vest in the defs,d
tile 10 the property, that they could US, IA
for this purpose | know Of no law rule which
would justify the Court 10 do byan order what tho
Legislature had expressly prohibited.
l should very much doubt If any property obtained
b. taxation, slether the WAS in money in
other property be taken By execution against be
cooperation Of New-iork, when such property either
has been or by aw is directed TO be applied to public
PuIPoses IL i not the property OF the Corpor~ios.
bn ., held by them or the public ase, and the remedy
70 Ell 'Ece claims against them by Judgment only
/ otnef source than BY taxation
/ Inc eaim can be adjusted by Judgment, aud n
tney own any property in their own right by excou-
tion against such property but beyond that Il seems
TO me, the remedy must be throagh the legislative
power in authorizing TAXATION and the power of tho
Courts to compel performance of the duties 50 Coz
iorred by the Legislature
Any other rule would be subversive Of the whoI.,
government of the city. II the money raised by tax
for tie public purposes of the city can b. diverted
against the provisions of law 10 the payment of iudg-
ments recovered upon other claims against the cy IN
instance, IT can be done to unlimited amount,
and the moneys provided for the support of the poor
the pay Of the police the holding elections the pay
meut OF the public debt other purposes be all coi-
sumed in the payment of Judgments
Such course would render il impossible to conduct
the government ofthe city, and TO guard against
such diversions of the money raised by that tho
Legislature has, from year 10 year, added restriction
20 restriction. to the expenditure of such moneys
II is said that there unexpended balances of fos
that might be applied 20 the payment this
debt Ii is not material now to oexanne this question.
because the examination ot Mr. Stout shows that ho
has money his hands, except the proceeds of this
wears tax. Wherever such balances may be- they
are not in his possession.
II is also said that hose restrictions oply upon
officers Of the city, and do not prevent the Court from
ordering the application of the money to this purpose.
Ii the Court could, with any proprlety, oricr an
officer of the City Government TO do an act ioroiddcn
by law (which do not in any degree asseit tol, s,u
such an order would be directly against pubno
policy and the welfare of the community, that should
not feel justified in making IT,
There IS also another and more conclusive reason.
which was not advel,cd to the argument, why tho
moneys raised by taxation not subject 10 BE- ap-
piled asked for by the plaintiff IL ~, that IL WAS
not provided by the Corporation, but was raised ~
the Supervisors of the city AMI county Part OF II iof
city purposes, and part Of 1t for county purposes.
Nothing in the act gives it to the Corporation ga
places il at their disposal but directs the Supervisors
10 raise IT, and then directs ts application To specinc
/ purposes. | see in the act nothing to make II tho
property OF the Corporation, which is the deendant
here and if not the moneys 40 raised are IN no way
sppcabe 10 the payment of the debts OF tho Corpora
ton, except in the mode pointed out in the statute.
The examination which have given to TINS ques-
tion has been limited only to that portion OF II winch
relates the right of the plaintiff to have the moneys
ment of his judgment; but it opens an inquiry of
Great Importance to the future welfare Of the City
Government as well "a involving the rights oi luig-
mert creditors the mode of enforcing their lug-
/ ments which must ere long receive lar more e.-
tended examination Some provisions OF law are evil
denly required for the payment oil the creditors m
such cases. ,., :.
such cases the amOuLts to be raised by taN at tho
eeding year, and staying ln the mean time, eAs-
cu,ion upon the judgments. The remedy however, Is
with the LEGISLATURE; The Courts can omy eA7ooo VI"
| law as it il.
/ Tie application for an order against the Chamber
lain must be denied.
( non II. Day, e, a. as,. stephen NJ Allen. ct al.
This was a mG:.nn by the defendant Allen, to have
tho place Of trial of this action CHANGED from Ne" York 70
Niagara County II stated BY Judge Edmouds Of ts
Of the Niagara Fals Water Power Company worth half
million dollars incidentally involved in ih' controversy.
half ana Nj Allen who represented certain parties ID Boston
owning the other half Of the property nchdns ths
II Niagara Fa which should get control Of tha
" J. A. Fuller esq counsel for the plaintiffs eontcndsd
that the morning paper were hay defective, and that his
client. Of The tina, the matter which the
defendants claimed % be- the only point IN dispute wit ,hs
Illegal election Of Trustees by Aen AZ Sas.ra Ta, .ss
Sps 4' m III aao NOT saa bci @ oon Of ths oer Of ,h.
Company Ncwlok City and the prior removal Of the de-
ueut dishonest acts e showed b depotions Of parties
Of lie hs,es, Tcspc9taby ths, Nj Allen en- was wholly I'M.
now undergoing investigation BY the Grand Jury fr perjury
trate NJ Fuller alluded to the fact that Nj Day,
plaintiffs the highest character aud POSITION
and commented with severity the financial career OF
Allen urgug with and pernicity the Court
that this Discretionary matter with the Judge which
could by In any way the sublec Of reyiew great care
should De decide he motion justly aud the ch,atsr
of che aants should he entitled 10 weight especially
Allen wholly unsupported BY other evidence than his
deposition which was not entitled to the lgi particle OF ed
Benton f. defendant Alien.
Ih1 judge took the papers and reserved III decsou
DECISIONS.
+. B. Sackett ngt. Allen 4 yrault. Motion denied;
plaintiff 20 abide event.
kaffF ga
Jeremiah :. Lane agt Anthony r. Salter, &c.
Judgment tor raintif for ljs n.
Before Judge SUTHERLAND
THE HARLEM RAILROAD CASH.
The argument was concluded in this case today.
Judge Sutherland took the papers and reserved hs
decision
THF WET Washington MARKET DISPUTE.
III People Taylor and m agt Tho Mayor Ac et a.
To-day this controversy came before the Court, ip
the shape Of demurrer interposed by deiendantsn I'd
plaintiffs complaint. Defendants claim that the COM
plant of action that three separate
and distinct Of action are improperly joined :"
wit: "
|. A cause of action by the People for improvdent
and unlawful management Of property by the City
2 An ecctmeut by the People with a claim for dam
ages.
g. A Ike claim by Taylor.
They further claim that said three separate actions
are not separately stated; that the People show no
cansc Of action in their behalf to the land or rents
Thereis defect Of parties 20 far as the People are
concerned in not making Taylor and Brennan deiend-
ants aud there is q ike defect Of parties so aI az ray
loy and Brennan concerned as plaintiffs, ia nos
placing the People upon the record ID an adverse a
tude 10 them.
UNITED STATES NARsHAEs OFFIcE-ocr. II.
ARREST OF A FoRGER--nas sHor.
Several weeks ago the Beyaran Consul 10 thH Guy
II.