New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-12-13
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-Dcc l2-Before Judges DAILY
H-A nd HTfTo


INFORMANT DECISION ~ FAVOR THE CITY.
Carl Hs'beeh Assignee & ss The Mayor &C. Of'he City Of
The plaintiff in this action sued, the assignee of
one Edwin Bouton, and claimed to recover s243 for
two months salary a Police Clerk appointed by the
Mayor, &c, on the 3lst December 1857. The defend
ants alleged that the said Mayor &C. had power to
apon, Clerks of the Police Courts but that the power
was vested in the Police Commissioners under the act
known as the Metropolitan Police act. The case was
tried before Hon. Charles Sweeney Justice Of tho Sec
ord District Court on the 10Th day OF April 1858, and
Judgment rendered in favor Of the plaintiff for the
amount claimed. The defendants appealed to the Cen
eral Term OF this Court who reversed said judgment.
Many other cases Of the character have been COM
meneed and are now pending. This case was appealed
as test case settle the question whether the Clerks
appointed by the Police Commissioners or those APP
pointed by the Mayor, &C., were legally entitled TO
draw the salaries. The Court decided in favor of the
Clerks appointed under the Metropolitan Police act.
Felix Hart, esq, for plain al.
Rufus F. Andrews ESQ., for defendants.
Christopher c. Ellis SE The Mayor. &C., Of New
The plaintiff in this action sued to SSJl and
interest for building retaining wall and constructing
manboes as extra work necessary to be done in the
execution OF contract TO se curb, and gutter and
nave Fifty fourth street. from the Third 10 the Fourth
avenues The plaintiff claimed that, although this
work was not included in the specification, that It was
impossible for him to complete his contract without
performing this work. The defendants claimed that
the work involving expenditure of more than s!Jo,
should have been advertised for and contract catered
into uTon sealed bids and proposals.. The case was
tried before Wm +. HON, esq, Referee, and deoi-
sion rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount
claimed The defendants appealed to the General
Term Of this Cour,, who rendered decision, reversing
the Judgment with costs
Stilwell & Swain for plaintiff L. +. Andrews for
defendants.
DECISIONS.
Judgments Affirmed, with Costs-Wm. II. Lee agt.
Addison SasoId Augustine Ford sg John c; Mhtrdee ID
SMd kieh e. J'a D HisI s Ts S,s TSeoe
Meyer Valentine Msjor; Divine H. Coles AZ Charles
s~ ysogss R-v at Wa l. JohasoS et Al John b
ceppirs,n sg Catherine {. sshoneat SeinerEs sst
' as Tsss s Sss1iy +. sS, judge Ss 1is'
DAMAGES FoR Personal INJURIES.
Dwight ag,. Andersen
This was a suit 10 damages for Injuries sus
tanned by psnt consequence Of tbs falling Of wall a: the
S..t TIE JsSy lsaSd verde, Or the plaintiff tor ssol
Chsuacey shsasF 0F plaintiff; John 1sAAa Tor SssnASo
SUPERIOR ooURr-srrcl.L Txas-Des. ls.-BsEOFs Ja'
Mri. Wade agt. Robegt a Czthorwood .
The storage receipt was given upon one distinct
TRANSACTION W. .ecalsy for loan Of $50 Ths the
s.pv absrsoted the goods bis sbdy o1y Tor the
es,ot re- BE- arrested and held % bail Tor
80. mr. csse clear except 20 this point ana cannot
theofs aschage the order bot the esu sss De fe'a 70
80 Order accordingly. with go costs
w. G,~KK.t TxRn-Dec. l2-Before AZ the Justices
COMMUNICATIONS.
rrr.R GosdrlS-e, respondent, sat new sppeisnts
Anaction was commenced in November, 1913, oy
ii1,s ssi,, 10, aefcndaD. for sCs for goods sold
49,. admitted tho sale but soi that TIE soooA nee
49,. IA an rea. which had not expired Of the
ep Of The action in Jannsy lss The ssens OF VIC pSy
~ ,,lS tbr elsirl esch party to pay theu own oo-ts
hsapeutv this stare Of settlement was denied 9y 'nr
80 s,tovv ho noticed the UEtu June ast Nne1 &c
i S,e1; BIZ default for the wtee soans and 'ss1ed exc
cation ief Tie cots, sonle = w.