New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-11-28
LAW LlVTELLIGENCE
SUPREME coURr-Ca,xBEss--Nov. s6-sesSre Js-tios
y.

SUPREME CoURT-CasxsEas-NO'. s@-ses'r~ 's<a's
iNGRAaAs e.
THE RECORD COMMISSION AND INK suPkaStsoRs-
nASpAMuS DENIED.
The Peorle ex rel Of peion Baker All The Hoard
Supervisors ct the County Of New-iork- $3.50.
IS6RAHAM Jan alternative maLdaaus was isssca
IN this si con T.9Sns the SSs The sSy. S,w s.s
thsn n relation to their with the conmi'sione@
ssSS's S 10 sl Ss ss ss should pSs BE- rs s
On hi. writ the respondents sob n Ssea' %
The psnias move to strike out M, ie;aIn Or Psre.s
Many Of the o6econ taken ths granting Of this
Of purely technical character. not asovn tae ne and ss
refusing to cary the provisions Of law deheag .he dlds
in regard theleo IL wser TOT Public 9Sa,s :, a. $3.50
The controversy a. once instead Of po.Ponins saea d.sa os
s they made pat bi. my duty 70 pas. app.
thou presented 20 i A. may be nsesssy q ass ds 'a
,os ever obtained had la their possession, certihces
the Commissioners Of Records fo any amount due them athen
lhe hrs, and second paragraphs o. the return weSd Tor.
general denial OF the aegao that the reo bad not ses
tons sch set out the election Of Minor Ressst hs
IVES eeO of tho Commissioners and that DO dad nOs ..
Tsn lOgsthsr these paragraph. Gully be eOnsasd
cord and did not sign the certiscsfeA
In form bad because es'ss the delsnee 20 es ,isrrs
feet. An Nrumen;aive return u bad,
thnk II bad also in substance 30. nse.sa ha =
ta they signed BY majority % 'sea ths. sPPes e =
hsvr notice meeting Tor the purpose In that ~ nag
consult oeber but Is not IN sac power Of any ons VII, asy
b. dsii aed In this way 70 prevent the Psynen, VI was
In ali cases whe:s public duy 10 b performed by sps
acts Of be m.Or bipauS THIS l. universal siospt
where the statute expressly requires the ssen Of ALL aAd tne
no G0S ss.Sn s1 S ss Ss 10, o.
authorizing the contract Cor II In tho trst instance
this which be
thy examination that for o'her the clssor
should be quashea the eon tor such WI" should net
A.
CLAIM raised BY to the reso and csius ts
the wboe required order to perform and ccmplss
II clear therefore that a posen the relstoss
have right t fund except the portion duo for work already
performed They my never complete tbe contract and nsy.
setled that Ielaio have Peremptoy writ unless hs
shows eleT legal right to Tss pc a ea lo asSa ia "a
IN not be pretended that these REALTORS the present tins
have spy such claim Whether they will have not q
iUe peod any such claim uncertain 1t may no. Be required
| msht not Sc needed a any time th. contract
whths they could apply for %ands%a, . 70 hs an ss
motion IL enough that they not epedo what .ssss
,D no 1 a suy Contractor Wits The City 6cvsrnnissi s
before Is competsd insist that the amount ,ntsa
because possible he might require during tho coming
n any one has right TO such be the Consus
have entered into the Contract and who wu squi
Il may be aid that part Of this tho res-
TORI That however does no, relieve the difficulty n tbs
spondenis The perempory wit mus. ioio~ the aiefns's
mandamus snd there eannot be Judgment for the relations for
aud for the respondents for the other part People
Supervisors Of Duchess H, sOD In the rom Bara
and Crssw 1885, objection appears to have been sds this
! point
For these of the opinion thu, the motion
peremtOry Should dsued and although
/. defective, st Il necessity TO strike any
of T. further relief could b. given to the REALTORS
bis application.
Aslbe return Is defective think proper refuse
either party this motion Motion densd without
E1Judgs EdInsnds and James r. Brady fos MeSpedss
Baker, A r. Lawrence for the Board of Supervisors
Before Justice srsess.
Geo. w. Stake agt, Charles Andre ct al.--Judgment
| affirmed, with $40 costs
| SUPERIOR COURr--GxEKRAL TKnz-Nof. R-Bsssra
all the JvsFIczs-DEcsoss
John :. Giles ag. VIM. Is. Crosbie ct al.-Judgment
a. 18th