The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-07-31

citizens end travellers Besides ss before stated ~
pains aooepsd Their charter with this restriction apea
complain that turns out 70 he moro burdensoms or n
convenient than wa frst anticipated.
Ayan ooltended that even admitting thas tho OR.
poraeos orgnauy had NE power under the &c.
agreement january O. 1882 ys By Subsequent ssssr.
The faith Of which the plans had incurred lsrse expsS
diturss and sabmasd % great inoonveniencos L has de-
;eu s ,nc S.s e s IN any way with ne
10 this Is likewise twofold
l. There can now exist no doubt that corporations. IKE
duoed By inference from oospOrse scs withoa. sisSes
vote, writing or deed. (Ex parte Peru Iron Com
p:ny Cover SO A%sr'i p. Insurance COMPANY
New YORK. Court Of Appeals, MSS, June term. 1853
but In applying this rule must be careful not violate
other legal principles. Such as-That act BIO made
valid which without the power of the Corporation Or
the scope of it, authority Here, Is we have seen, tie
cerpos.oo could n0s deprive is.sI o. !. isssi,vs pow
their use BY overy body including the plsnts and any
att pt do go by contract either expr or implied
2 Ihe papers read this motion failed to convince
that the Corporation ever entered into any such agree
INFER any contract OF the nature alleged
Il . quite probable the plaintiffs supposed, when they
arched tho trench from Thirty third 70 Forty nrss
with them in the Of their engines Thirty
second street. and though this based entirely
ucsS Ssys Seeo svs
acted upon good faith Having for the stated
arrived n the conclusion that the ordinance which PLAIN
life ask to have the enforcement Of restrained vAiA
aud that the plaintiffs bound to obey, does not
necessary TO inquire into the reasons which actuated
the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty or the city OF Now
York In adopting IT. because courts arc bound to
that where q discretion Is vested in municipal body
cispg functions Of legislative character that good
existed for the adoption or regulation ordinance
which was tie result Of such discretion. Oneida Com
Pleas W. People, 10 wend 70, 9s) me aicAvs pro-
steam engines a the pa,ntfs depot, at Thirty second
street. constitutes nuisance to tho neghbofh0od and
tho constant running OF engines across the swsks
and the condition OF the avenue at this point, pre-
duced BY the plantis acts constitute an obstruoton
TO its free use by our citizens to such N OK.
teri 10 call for the adopN n Of the Ordnance
may DO tie reasons which have controlled the
In their conduct but whether they ii Is
not duty to consider having determined the ordinance
In question 10 DO valid and one that the defendants
properly enforce. Although upon the srsumeot WAS
deemed By counsel both necessary 70 inquire int
the powers duties OF the Bard Ponce Com mission
ers, and the powers Of policeman constable bota at
law and under the broad provisions of the Metre
csssary that SHOULD follow them after having arrived
the conclusions stated is enough say that the duty
Of enforcing ali TIE public ordinances OF the city 90
Peciay thuse which are applicaoe to police tn
(sectons 8, 10Y, imposed by iax upon the Board Of
Police Commissioners and W add that upon adavits
read on this notion the ordinance n question might very
properly be ClAs.ed under either head. have Alb
stained rom inqur!ng whether, under tho Law
aueDdatcry Of the act incorporating the plaintiffs
passed March 49, lS4S, (see laws or 1s4s, Gu l43,
p. 1851 the New York and New Haven Railroad
to the CT the planting possessed by tina
PLAINTIFF because that company before thu Court az
party TO this action But II the views have stated
correct, is difficult to perceive wherein Their position
under the orcinaIoe In question, differs materially from
that OF the plaintiffs.
TIE motion for injunction is denied.