New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-11-02

,.s.. III, Of jadguen, s vpors
81. nsys s., 10 es..s9 s J 70 %.ss s Or biz q
exceptions ske any ,eps to revew ne aeclsen n
unioundsa lssdssni and thai good Ssssss s.'.ss
Thereto, he ss5 :.iss ,A. the S.. :,.sa.
he sht T. NAH TN. .PPen .pe TO empty -. .-
,roe has to believe A., judgement has ben 90
tanned by cot uon founded fraud Mat has esased aeh
disclose, a. preliminary .,e@sa, 70 .osAoIls ham % SCI,
What wa, The opsrsios Of b. HSd n sr,as = .ISh sso
used Indefinite almost amount 10 sathoriy
n. &c. s
has the conclusion that there .ss COLLISION o. l.S ~
hardly necessary to be decided nov not e4assns n.the
Controller oeheer Of the city thai ths statute ss
beneficial intended to protect me iss.a o. s IN
my Judgment it shoald be very literally Construed
even .hoo a. sxpr.s. charge OF COLLISION fraud should DO
considered .ufcien, evidence that ne has chin az
In this however the shdAvii Of the ConrSeI shows
founded in iIaad because say. affidavit thai Seye-
believes that the claim Pon which the action was BASED
Such statement amply afcen, enable him 70 tale he
necessary steps TO move the Court as " provided 'i IN ~
The object OF ,h. motion to compel the reerce TO nAAs
statement cse Of the proceeding, hu snS to furnish
copies OF the pesdng papers, ke used In the cAa--of !"
compel the parties TO furnish such eopes nx
no, satisfied that such could properly Dc made oe
The Statute has provided away in which the Referee 10
compelled evidence Of matter within his know edse
W he refuses to do voluntarily by eompens hum to sppeA
prtoEe Judge OF thr NoaE OF heicse~ AM
For the purpose OF notion such Is the only which
appears be obtain his estnonys statement nsa~
by could hardly be proper TO be used ey
SS9s + not within the sI ns Ss Ss.s he ss
Nor DO thnk the papers show aease wnrsnms The ofast
to Se ssss the
r such PP They are pIss mt NEE; M no. AZ q
M the head and csnno, suppose that the Corporation Coan
sci would refuse copies Of such papers 10 the Con-
1t apparent rom the correspondence, which reed on
this notion that there difference Of opinion between the
officers the precise mode in which the Controller should
proceed and from on the par. OF the COUNSEL
in the management what peculiarly belonged to his depart
n'.ni unless N ustters pAeulsry provided 10. ~ Ao0,
he unwilling believe that officer would refuse an
on behalf Of the Controller io such papers, but on me con
counsel all such papers ON application therefor
s % on. s a the
Counsel in which he stated that he did no, know Of
facts going to establish collision fraud and ursed that
reason why thi. motion should be denied II Sufficient
July July Ia t"'''' - '1'' ''''''''' '' '''' '
What other facts have to his knowlsdse since not
known but when he states under cath that he believe. .as
since writing hist letter he has obtained Information JuyS
him in making that Legation My conclusions IN regard TO TINS
/ does require tina, the Controller should
show by affidavit the grounds which his opinion was formed
That the being the benefit of the public and n-
tended 20 prevent fraud should be literally Construed
That the making Of the application by the Son,fosr ne
evidence itself that he has to believe that the cause
existed which the statute required to warrant his action
have avoided the expression opinion on the merits OF
th motion because the not argued before ur ana
such opinion properly belongs 10 the Judge before whom
the shall be brought think however much OF
the motion asked for posponemen Of the arguments upon
the necessary evidence nom the referee can DO
obtained should be granted.
To enable the counsel the Controller to obtain such evil
the other should directed to be heard the
18th November next at II Copies OF all ahdavs and
papers be used thereon, addition to those already served
to be- served plaintiff attorney four days PRIOR teeo y"
costs II anted on this motion.
Before Justice INeRAHAn-
DECISIONS