New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-09-15

t,.. ". have now to ded. 81. Tsuliason
w,s ,ppciu.,d in 1913 BY Willis Hall sd tbs
BOARD Of Aldermen. Mr Hsll eeiog Corp'rs''ca
Counsel and lead Of the Law D'pN'
inert. Toni nson Wa tren c'inorou'
AID erup;iye Wing, an adept IN PyFosecanie
d. cl.matop, AID on hand upon every OCCASION
gtere speech could he improyised to his Pers'a'i
sdyautsie. Ofcourse he vas noisy for rsf'rm aod
re;rsucbment. and eres, things were expected Of
MS legal zeil and energy when the co0m-ss''n
which paid for bis electonserlrg services was
placed in his hands, starting him with salATy
Of - COO yesr, aud no eud OF peTquis'te' Dur
iog his frs, ,esr, l-iS be psid into the Ire ,'ury
$40 Il; tie rext year S2l9 .. During tn" yeT
III. the receipts for ell penslties, under which Tue
Attorneys payments are ctassed, foo'ed up
s39.2 O.: in Sictles's second year Il ws'
sll.O50 So; in J. r Haskin's 6rst year, S2l,'S
"a: Tomlins0n's FIRST year, S497 81; second year.
500 A. These figures show remarkable 'sria-
ton Ard admit OF but conclusion; Tor II is nos
likely that when tie Attorney was allowed 20
pocket the fees sdudged sgaiust every violation Of
ordinances and 70 couprouiss suits At his pleasure
that be ould be slow in bringing up such offenders
az b, could End Indeed, it is net presumed
that the business Ct the office was iSs
sctive in these years than at any previ-
Gus time But in order to increase tee
psy OF Mr.. Tomlioson. t, friends in the Common
Council 1.-THE Boards We're two-thirds Wings sud
ODE third Loco.F Ocos), passed al ordinsncs to
make the Corporation Attorney the Coui sci 70 tue
Slns.House Department allowing him 81, cOo per
snpum extra compensation for such services A
lsree number of suits thus transferred 20 nI'
bands. and were disposed of by verdict or settle
msnt, greatly to the advantage OF the fortunate
Attorney. In l-52 the Democrats regaiued the
ascendepey, and Mr. Tomlnson sas rotated out for
the benef. of Daniel T.. Sickle'. NOT long after
this event, Mr. T. changed his political coat, con-
ceyed strong theoretical and practical opposition
10 Prchib.ery Law, becoming the attorney OF
the liquor dealers, and the great advocate OF the
right Of every man to get drunk when and how he
pleased-spd to vote the Democratic ticket. For
this conversion the DemOcrsts-with generosity
peculisr to that party-elec'ei him to the Legisla
eater Of the burning words of deuunciation he had
50 recently launched at his new patrons.
But to the point just now in question. Six or
seven years after TomlInson had lief: the office OF
Corporation Attorney, be comes forward with a
bill sgain,t the city for extra pay in the quits for
which he had taken bis $4,000 year in fll com.
peDsstion Having initiated suit for this clalm in
time TO be within the statute be waits about three
ye..s Logger until the matter s forgot'eo, and then
puts in bill of costs in thirty seve different cases
and it is alleged, charging jury and trial fees IN
cases never tried at all On the assumption that
this bill was re gusr, and that each case hid been
duly tried, Judge Brady, of the Common Pleas,
allowed the full costs, amounting to nearly $50, 900.
The claim WAS then brought before the Gene raj
Term OF the Court, and there referred to George
w. Stevens, James s. Siuyter, and Mer1i0 r.
Brewer. who decided the. Tomlinsou mast hsve
SCI, 400. This judgment was duy indorset by the
Court, sDd is nov regular claim against the city
II is due TO the Corporation Counsel to say that he
defended the city on the grrund that Tomllnson
took bi. $4,000 10 ful compensation, aud further,
that Judge Brady taxed TIE trunpsry bill Of costs
uod9r tie wrong impression that the suits named
had been regularly tried.
So Gsr as equity Is concerned, the whole affair is
delibt rate and unmitgsted swiudle, aud there is
70 evidence that, for years, Tonlinson had the
slightest notion of claim against the city Per
hsps it the urgency of his case as trustee for
the children Of the late George Steers, 10 which be
is Low sutd for breach of trust 10 falling to nves,
$4,000 Of the orphans money as directed, which
created this claim upon The city. At any
rate, it is the duty OF the Corporation Couu.
SCI t. appeal this case, and open the judgment.
There have bee many mpudent claims SIS success
fully put through; bu. this is 20 maniiestly false
ard fraudulent that there csn be no question Of it,
reversal if the guardians Of the City Treasury do
their duty.
This case ought AFRO to put an enc to the Referee
business. With individuals who have time to watch
for themselves, II mSy do; but for Corporation to
ppete with sbrewd plaintiff at a. irregular and
pirate hearing is sheer folly. A year ago, we ex-
posed some of these Referee cases where the CITY
had been most outrageously swindled aud this one
is Of the same pattern. 1t may be said that the
Courts ought rot TO confirm these MUST awards but
when the Courts grant tie reference 10 escape the
trouble of the case, uothing less could be expected
Let Mr. Busted look t it that this case is held up
for an example ard warning.