New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-10-08
Law INIELLIGE NCE.
II PRIME COURT-CBssHEss-OcT. Before Judy,
tssEsHsN
THE LOWBER JUDGMENT
I'M Ill tph"I'i ''"' '"-
Ri. " Iovh-r ar Tn. Mayor kc

lain with r.gnrd to the ability OF the city pay the
amount Of the judgment heretofore rendered in favor
of Mr.. Low ber.
Nj Whiting objected To the e1amn ,tion, and ssked
tine for the purpose OF preparing papers.
Mr. Curtis Moves. counsel for Lowh-r. stated that
il VA. tine that this outside influence Sth the Jnllcl
srv ceased Much odum had been east upon Mr.
I6wber in consequence If this contract and yet moth
ing tad been proved against him, and, therefore, In
iudicinl port ui view, nothing existed. Mr. N0yes
., n,.nded that the examination -houh 90 on If'here
was any argument it could not be heard upon att Ia
Wits and Therefore any points to be raised should be
I argued furti Win.
In. Judge directed the examination to proceed, and
II 10, k place in the adjoining room, "a follows:
Question By Mr.. Barber-IIsve you any money in
vonr hand belonging to the defendants, the Mayor,
Alderman aud Comnionalty Of the City OF New York
Arswer-I have; about 25 Geo. i. will not vary but
a few dollars from that.
Cross-exauingtior-In what capacity do you hold
that oney A. Chamberlain.
O. To what account is it or, dited by you A. To
tie ace, mt OF the Ciiy Treasury.
q. Do You keep any account of the particular ap-
rruIriatiUps A. do with each and every appro-
pnation.
hands belong a. The money Is To the credit OF the
Civ Treasury subject to the draft Of the Mayor,
Controller ana Clerk, 10 be- drawn in behalf of any
appropriation to the extent Of such appropriation
tue charter requiring me to keep sucn account, to see
that mole Of the appropriations get oyerifawn.
Q. Do | understand that the money now IN your
hands subject Ia draft for the unexpended appropr
atious already made A. Ii IL.
O. Have YOU any uioney in your hands not subject
to appropriation A. have money TO the credit OF
the Commissioners OF the Sinking Fund.- have none
other belonging Ia the city.
.. Do you speak Of appropriations by the Common
Couuci by act Of the Legislature A. BY the act
Of the Legislature.
O. L. the arn, unit of unexpended or unpaid appro-
pratious at this time less than the balance in
your hands 7 A. Ii Is more
o. From what does the balance in your
a. q ham IN
anticipation Of the tax of 1873, and from moneys re-
ceived this year from the Collector ct Taxes.
Re-drect-Q. Can yon state how much money you
had III hands belonging Ia the city on the 2th OF
June. ls57 A. cannot answer.
=. State, il you please, US nearly as you can, how
much YOU have rece we'd and how mach you have paid
on, sir ce that dale. \. Several millions.
O. In speaking Of appropriations by the Legislature,
what act do you refer TO { a. The Annual Tax Law.
Q. L. there muney in your hasds amounting Ia
about $22i 20 which is applicable TO the payment OF
the various specific objects nentionei 10 the Tax act
of 1858, a. acquisitions fl such payments are made
from time to tmr' A. II is 81 held applicable to the
payment Of any such Appropriation.
Re-cross-exainiuation-By wnat authority did you
make the payments since 1877 A. made them
on tie warrants II the Controller against the appro-
priatons.
TIE examination then closed. The parties went
before Judge Ingralam and further proceedings were
adjourned TIL ridey
DECISIONS.
Russell w Adams ~ AL AFT. Ephraim y. Wheeler.
Motion granted with 10 costs To abide the event
Theodore W. Marsh ct al. at. John horgan.-No-
ton denied, with 10 Gusts, To sbd' the ev'u'
Before Judge SUTHERLAND
Theodore W. Bayard ct al. at. Jrrome Is. Fellows.
Motion for oontuuanc. ana for receiver granted with 10 co'i
o abide event
Before Judge SUTHERLAND
THE HARLEM RAILROAD CASE.
DAME! w Whitney ct al agt The Mayor &c and the New
lors aud Harlem Railroad Company
On the return of the order to show in this case
TODAY Judge Sutherland said lie wanted the plaintiffs
to show the difference between the in the Common
Pleas and tie one before the Supreme Court. In his
opnion this interference Of Court with another had
gone far enough.
Dir, O Conur said the only difference in the papers
was an allegation upon information and belief that the
present Corporation had been bribed by the railroad
coupanles.
Mr.. Field contenled that the allegation as stated
was an essential difference as II went 10 snow t'at
private corporation mad the power to have Resolutions
passed by the public corporation.
Tie Judge stated that he would not interfere 10 any
that had been already passed upon by court OF
equal jurisdiction
Mr. Iu.teed said il gave him great pleasure to hear
the judicial al BUuncenIeDt.
Mr.. Greene c. Bronson then proceeded to trace the
differences between the ease betre the Court and the
one that had been decided by Judge Brady In the
other case the Railroad Company had defended them
selves on the ground Of public convenience and in this
case the plaintiffs had proof that the Company was not
n
Court If Common Pleas. The second difference WAS
in the charge Of bribery.
Judge Sutherland sail the only questions IN hls mnd
were whether lie had power to restrain the legislative
acton of the Common Councils whether the act oil the
Common Council was a legislative act, and whether
the question Of legislation before him had not been
ALREADY passed upon by judge Brady. The plaintiffs
should show e distinction between the case Oh that
point and the defendants should answer.
Mr. Busted made preliminary objection, that as
the only ference ~ the complaint was the allegation
of brib, ~ and as that allegation founded on in
formation and belief, the proceedings should g. No
further
The Judge said that point came mp on the merits,
and not as objection. Ii the facts the same
6s in the before Judge Brady, would be proper
for him TO grant injunction, when that Judge had
denied IL.
Mr. Hutcl ms was commencing to read the All lavlts
charging bribery when Mr. Buateed objected, saying
that the papers which contained snch lnia nous scau-
dols, winch would be promulgated throughout the
sDo should not be- read at this stage vi the prVcecd-
iIes. .
Mr. Waldo Hutchins, however, read the affidavit of
Mr.. Whitney the plaintiff, which reeit-d tnat he mad
nothing IN common with the suit Of Ten Eck already
lnssrd upon by the Court OF Common Pleas Inc
affidavit ,fJ. W. Whitney WAS also read, winch set
firth that the papers in the had been prepared a.
soon rs possible, and that they had not been hell
back with any reference 10 Judge Bradys decision 10
tie suit Of Ten Eyck and wife before him. Deponeht
further stated that since the service Of the papers he
had diligently -hdeavured ~ procure additional anna
Wits in reference ~ the charge OF bribery against the
Corporation; that d-ponet watel npon three 81 tue
Directors # the Harlem Railroad Company, ana re-
quv-ted them TO make deposition in this action a. 20
the charge e bribery If the Common Council ana a'
tie same time handed written request tor Sail per
sos r. make snch deposition. but that each Oh 7alt
directors refused 10 do, that ieponent applied on
Monday last to some Of tine members Of the corpora
ton, and others, 10 make their deposition, depoheh'
knuwing that such prisous c"uli give nnpcr'an, eV
deIee on that subject, but that al said persons 'e,used
a. Al. s.t In H.