New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-12-13
SUPREME COURT-CHsSsERs-Deo l3-Befort Jssiies
CLKREE.
THE wALL-sTREET PERRY cAsE-THE JUDOaRST sgt


Sharp art. The Mayor. &C. ofthe City Of New-York
BY the 5tb section Of act entitled " An act to
enss the s1Ps,,srs the y and county l q Se~I orr 70
The " when be has believe that Judgments Of
recovered agains them have been obtained by COLLISION
founded only authorized but required 10 take
and to use the the Mayor Aldermen Cousaonay
ard to employ counsel for tbsi purpose.
commenced before me whether judgement could b
opened on an application made by the onIoe puT.u'n 70
naiiyey show bot uevehees pap9be errer 10 tss pro
on the part Of the defendants counsel
The Comptroller that the action Is unfounded and
fraudulent and this bef whether afterwards sub-tanSed by
direct goO not i Sufficient justification 70 him for in.tut
sincerely sntrsunghs belief bring the case before ne court
the motion circumstances disclosed not amounting 20
collision sud eHce such fraud be Inferred from tie
manner In Nnrh The REFERENCES was ooaned-not A'nis even
intentional breach Of tuy IN respect on the p. OF defend
M been rendered sgein' the defend
and tie time for rsmedying the error By
OF the court, that the case has been properly
nifty being heard and effectively offended Uudoubt
judgments sad former occasion, not dissnz to
th should hastily for slight be got aside; out
where the mistake l. manifest and where throug mad.
counsel any other winch the defudan
can peye b. husrrd Of eSaaed by Opening The ndsreat
and Syg the defendant an opportunity Of being heard before
tine uitsse tribunal There many reasons which sat,f
the Judgment IN this action should be opened
time and PLACE l. not necessary IN enunerate or ndciie
all Of them II il sufficient to mention
Tn. is action FOR Representations the defendants SCENTS
be false o the great ALLEGED dsmage Of the plintif
motion made b the plaintiff counsel FOR reference
copy lang and that number Of sePasie snd distinct
The notice the Of the prsou whom the PLATA
40 Wished TO be appointed seise Isquag tsat me o 81
spdeared from the order opposed BY ,be
to eoutes, it, that the Judge made aware Of
earnest and reel opposition. am not informed )
writing that the Iorder to all ntents and purposes
compulsory reference No" although by section the code
of lolu
,bs, ~ TefJencs can he eov,gl,orit odsed that
is without of both parties eEeep, the tA shall
nav b. directed TO hear and decide the whole issue snd
except the taking Of account shall be for the
information the Court before Judgment for carrying the
judgment into effect The order OF reference in h action could
have granted only the first subdivision Of the latter
m hei is the ground thu! the Isl required the
But no such presnse is set the affidavit which the
application founded IT Gully tstea that number Of separate
and distinct facts viii have to BE- proved by large namost o.
different witnesse Nor does appear om The peadngs that
GceoTTf could be invoked The snis indeed by way
Of acgrsyaton Of damages that lie Obliged to sTpend large
ibis could not Constitute account against the dsfeud4no
oEingit within the policy Of iAe a wheh con pes N
pess OF implied cuTact between the parties 20 sction
or their Representative departure from the ordi-
S,srv method of trial In common law actions No
account this description be in action o. tort
sounding in tort Indeed ihs were permitted thet pre-
vision the Constitution declaring the trial by jury IN al
in which has been heretofore used sha be a'oas or
ever could be aways eyeded ms IL constitutional is|
which b. sialy conervod and say legislative
provision tsmpcrng with should a. the least De very strictly
construed Compulsory references should be vigorously cnnnned
10 cases inv diving the examination Of bous hd account
in an scon Of contract and should also be literally aud
truly long account therefore thA thst ne Nonit
ssd Of reference most inanisty exceeded rs
power and believe tom some sppfrhsasion committed
grave error would perhaps proper fof sitting
al special Term review the action " Snother Judge also al
the Special Term Of This dscn pton Ses the
order is voidabe But here j. stte Ealing upon the Courts
70 iuerposs IS any eneisocy a1d requiring ceftan of
Ger dnereus from the head o. the Law De2artie 81 the
CORPORATION to ths application, IN questions Of
vitsl importance in which tie interests q nrshy
,.s1i nj pt~sCn are
asersut errcr, fo-cing the trial Of diiicnt and
complicated before Tribunal, IN conSraVeniion'
appe shall under uch eircustsDces hesitate 70 sfor TO
TIE defendants such trial they are conatHalonaJy entitled
"a, an confident ii tie Judge who granted the order o.
ference heard The motion which an now ahea to decide and
would be the hst lis order aud SGT a.ids s
Indictment founded upon u. , -.
~. already ntisfe1 Is 10 coDedoE she
Other ehieccs 70 the In which the Jufsnert Wa
obtained The order Of reference alone would be ai 70 ~
~ Judgment De sse, ard Tie order Of reference
gtef