New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-15
NepWork DAILY Gibm,te
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SUPREME COURT-GnsERAL Txxx-JUss ll-Bsfore JUS
tees SUTHERLAND, LEONARD, and BocKEs.

COUhI-01SEhkLI EhI-JUsE lt-boofe Jus-
tees SUTHERLAND, LEONARD and BocKEs
THE cosTEsTIEG CITY OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES IL
FAVOR OF MR.. PLATT.
The People and Nathan c. Plat sgt. Andrew v. Stout
II being understood that the City Chamberlain case
would be decided this morning the Courtroom crowded
with officials and others interested in the result
Judge Sutherland delivered oral opinion, stating that the
action in the nature OF quo raTrdnfo The plaintiff Mr.
Plat claimed that entitled to the Office Of Chamberlain
Of this city, that he ought be put into I'll that the defendant
Mr. Stout entitled TO H. and that he ought to be oued
The complaint various facts to show Mr. Platps title
his rights to the Office Mr. Stout had been legally and
properly from the Office The stated that Mr.
Stout had not legally removed and entitled the Office
The pau this The question whether
Mr. Stout been legally removed Judgment lorna had
been rendered at the Special Term in favor Of Mr. Stout The
General Term were the unanimous opinion that this judgment
should be reversed and that the plaintiff must have judgment
the demurrer admitted TO the possession Of the Office
The Court had no discretion power in the matter
when the authority vested In the Mayor and Alder
men had been duly and legally exercised BY them
h Of removal was given the Mayor and Aldermen
Even the removal be for alone the Court could
not declare what that was left to the Mayor and Al
dermen who power Of removal and which power could
not be reviewed by the There doubt that the Al
demen had concurd with the Mayor and that the concur
renee was reafhrmed at a subsequent meeting
Justices and Bockes delivered concurns opinions
The following Is the opinion of the Court
LEosARp Is action in the Mature Of gEo icarant
10 city Of which II Is alleged he whods
% sppur S "a I and has u duly GaaiSed
The assigned for the removal OF MI STOUT a .hat ne
had interest the funds OF the city In his hands
% mode Of removal was by the Mayor with the of
m mss ,ao 20 of Il The Board Of Aldermen.
MI Stout insists that ne was not required TO pax ~
him IN his Official capacity opportunity afforded him
to be heard his defense and that his removal in fact
without legal csnse and Tor these reasons wn0y ineaec
These questions come up on demurrer to the defendant.
l.h. diugsa
Of fsct on either side Is admitted.
right q & % h. aa& :qs the
assigned therefore, and the authority Of the Court to
movs BY the Mayor and Aldermen has been exercised
questions that have been agaed Deo5e decide "a with great
have given all the time and examination which
have permitted we are no" pspsGed to
The City Charter passed in 1881 provides Zee ~ that hS
the ADVICE and Of the Boaa Aldermen pro-
vdes the Mayor shall have the to suspend for cause
consent Of the Board Aldermen any of the Heads
s Ss Sosd a OF ep%n 70 h sT Sc
without the consent of the Mayor by vote of two
thirds members elected to of the He ads Of
for cause: except me @ ana sa 10
the CorpoEGn % che 'g tb Board Of de
and be removed In the same manner with the Heads
Of Departments.
Constitutions 1921 and of 1916 find that where the
has been conferred for causes to be publicly assigned
by those the has been vested that the response
bity to the people it was considered would be sufficient
guard agaast an improper exercise Of TINS y appears not
etSEe Ssvs examined with considerable care to lind any adud
Gated where the Courts have exercised the power to review
The Of an officer in %sess sSs ss e. %
lave beer unable 10 meet with ouch a case.
The Mayor and the Board of Aldermen not acting in
ministerial capacity in ReSh is ga Ia act sS here Soned OF
vested in any inferior jurisdiction aud that discretion has
eseTesed msndaos will not granted because Court
The atom Of the principle decided in analogous cases
arising ns0dem". are a GSnSsve in b point b hss NE
Stout is now in Office by eo,9r OF ngh Johns s. Gases ~
not afford any why the principles decided III arising
msndamGs net good authority IN actions Of quo war
yi.os Tie Supervisors authorized by law to examine
settle elbow all accounts against their respective counte
marshal for taking censu after having audited the
The held that the law conferred the Supervisors the
mandam1s 10 How. Pr r.. l7s, The People rel. Oh. A.
he SS q the Attorney deteac Whether
particular proper that an action should De brought 70
sndamus the exercise discretion under that section
by Attorney General IN its nature Judicial act from
T ya ir s"l Wa s C R o. Wadde s the Mayor S The
Chatter the City Of New York authorized the Common Co
all to alter the grade of the streets IL decided that
was the province Of the Supreme Court to review the
3Cowen's r.. 33l. TX pate johnson
This application of the County Court to
for keeping his office in grogshop The authority
Justices Peace vested by the Constitution IN the
County Court for particularly assigned by judy
that Court and after notice 70 the party complained Of and
on opportunity Of being heard In his defense.
The County Court denied the application without reference 70
the merits and In substance refuedto slider the subject AZ Az
An application made to the supreme Court for nanda
compel the County Court to take cosnzance Of the
The Supreme Court decided that the County Court held Con
sutional power with which they would not INTERFERE lhst
the County Court the sole judges whether 'hsy would
~ r. the Judges of the Oneida Com Pleas agt The
People, &c. -. Al. Al, III. A. -,
The Court Common Pleas certified that the tte to land
came Ia question the trial OF cause wnch carried costs
the defendant although the recovery was under hty dol
lar The defendant In that action applied to the Supreme Couu
for directing the Common Pleas 20 vaate the order
The title did not come In question: and awarded
the The question was carried before the late Court
Of Errors.
cman Pleas had shown arbitrary pariay The Court Of
ys decided unanimously l22 members presently that the
Tanns withholding OF the cehcse In the discretion Of
he Common Pleas the authority being conferred on them by the
a,nte aud that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction
40 review decision Of the Court below, certifying that the
title land In question the trial This ~as IN
where the certificate was wholly unfounded In fact
cases referred to- In the various authorities
cited and also in the authorities referred TO on the points
counsel the appellants establishing conc usvey that
where particular discretion authority OF Judicial nature,
has conferred inferior jurisdiction by statute the
ese Of that authority cannot be reviewed In any respect and
the udgmen which such jurisdiction may render conclusive
the right OF appeal review has been expressly given by
law.
The authorities cited English Reports by The counsel
been carefully examined aud without
here reviewing thea detail II IS sufficient say that the
authority TO remove officers by the various corporations by
which tie power exercised derived from custom pre-
scnpton incidental power and In many instances
existence OF right make the removal ALL many
necessary TO be aseeaned aud the right existed