New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-10-15
SUPREME CoURr-CmCuIr--OcT IL-Besore Ja,tice
UOcEHOoN

THE wALL-sTREET FERRY LEASE.
Jacob Sharp ag. The Mayor, &c.
This case was further postponed this morning in
consequence Of the absence OF msedh witness Another
effort win BE- mBde tomorrow morning to bring on the trial
Both Circuits adjourned without doing anything no cases
SPEciaL TrRx-ocr. n-Before Justice LEONARD.
DECISIONS.
Anthony Mowbray agt. John Kelly, Sheriff.
judgment ior defendant ON demurrer, with costs;
John j. Schernerhorn ct al sst. Henry Gouge vt al
Ffsncis Roedsr sgt Dorm,n L. Observation-Disclosures. for
plaintiff everything demurrer. with coats With leave TO Do
70 s' sS f ae Gsy .d n eTn % the
action .therwso the order will direct tho payment OF costs
george Gould .st Charles Gould Judgment for plaintiff
demuer with leave to answer In 20 days. on payment Of
John B.hop e, al AIT John Edmlson-Judg1nent for de-
PENDANTS John and James Edmson the demurrer unless
plaintiffs amend their complaint in 20 days and pay the co'
John 4 Livingston az. Sidney oak,uih Demurrer ever
Before ustice HoGBBoos.
John G.. Billhofer agt. Victor Heubach.-Case
settled
Charlotte L. Smith agt. james acknowledgment
for plaintiff sni1g opsra ion from bed and bOs'd the
GENERAL TERS.-NAr l6l-PTelent, CLERIC, LEONARD,
IMPORTANT DECIsIoS-POLITIcAL.
The Psope rel Thomas Crnmns and EGederk ssbsefer
ss,. Thoms' McMsnu' and Daniel Gallagher
II seems that 1T the charter election in the Nine
tenth WaLd OF this city, IN DecsAosr Ast Thomas Men anus
and Daniel Gallagher received certificates Of election om
Tro,Sea o, lie C5umca schools Of hat Gd .Eo legal tenn
being sr yea the lot Of January last ard they have
nsT Tomss Crmmins aud Frederick schsefer who fof
Inc sams Offices a that election brought action IL the S
prone Court In the nature OF quo 10 Gust said Nc
election districts % votes ound in the ballot boSe,
log the o. the REALTORS bat were wrong uy thosD
ONT by tho ground tina, these were IT,
dor,od Pablo Schools instead Of Common Schools which /,
the rruu rement o the law that II these votes had been a.
loved Criminals would have been elected over Gallagher BY
majority Of y. -, on. 49,, a.. .,..,,. :, a.
I'd District null and void by his acting an inspector While
he was candidate IN gelsi,n Of law aud Therefore, by
throwing this district schaeer would have been elected
over hcAiarui By majority o. votes
~ ,o was sai and those ballots were therefore, proper
IN rejected sovnd that by the amended act OF lo0 the d
psstisn removed; aud thirdly, that tho plaintiffs having
omitted be sworn into office within fifteen days AFTER the
l Of January last tney toFeed al 'ue hsu' 70 INC ONCE
The case wa, tried before Justice Well, and Juiy ia March
l. when the Justice ruled with the painisSon all the points
raised and instructed tho jury 70 ind verdict In favor Of
bo,h GA n against both dendsuts -rd directed the legs
point: T rats y DC ca, Wa. .lsSsd Iey fully beSe TIE
Term in May ana Friday last the Court rendered the Tel
LEosasp J-F., The de.nd.n. Gallagher being can
s, W ss 81 TS y Of &
IN election 1850 lis Office an Inspector Of Eertions for
@ second District IL s, W.d %. sses sS 'ic'n SUI we
nothing the &C, Of 1880 sh.p 2tS Seas ncons,sh' with
Two Inspectors Of Election may act, however Il H. ~
Sc elsr 10, Gallagher to act Is an Inspector at that
There were nevertheless two lawful Inspectors and by the
.tory provou referred to- they were competent 70 act
,shsut MI Gs.xher il might be considered that public
peicy requires tn. for Mr. Gallagher at The election
dct where acted Inspector should not be counted
Ia III, favor necessary 20 dsede that question as
will be subsequently seen. -
So sr az the question affects the defendant NcMsnus the
public policy which prohibits voters from being diairanohised
must In the absence oil fraud OF tho violation OF
press e, affecting the result or rendering the votes or the
.a.tion uuz
TUE MI 0ssshsr was not Inspector either de fsc.o
e.e,icn Th, sct did not render The
two inspectors OF the ballots OF che voters invalid twas
was invalid although four Inspectors acted part Of the time,
Of whom necessarily wholly unsuthoriod to act
There fraud alleged or proved In respect to proceed
inC. At the said election district nothing to show that the
Of the election was In any respect affected By the con-
In INV opinon The returns from the sscond district were
properly received certainly far McManus concerned
II the vote. In the third ard fourth election district, Of the
said Ward which headed designated foT Trustees Of
Public Schools Instead Of ComoH Sehoos the once Fl,
called IN the s'ns had been SS me s rsaOt one 81
loManus There two candidates only 20 be elected
were the persons elected The verdict in favor Of both the
ssofs both the defendants IL cannot be upheld
The view, OF the Counsel for the reaors arc correct
In Iepsc. to Ito vote, tho third and fourth dsrc
referred to- The addition Of these votes to these allowed
would elect the relator Cumrnins but not Schiefer
The defendant MoMsnus 10 entitled TO his Office aud The
verdict against him. erroneous without reference to the
technical questions whether one action can be maintained In
behalf OF two claimants each demanding Sepase and distinct
offices This may be, however question Of p!eading and
then Il irrrgular eau perhaps be amended.
was erroneous to direct avs'd'i Tor Doth plaintiffs 'Sn'
assuming Inst tiisl may be had hereafter involving tho
questions sruE the votes Of the Third and Fourth Lice
ton Districts It IL Important shat tho yisws OF tho General
Tern. thereon shosld BE- hsd.
consider that the intention Of the voters distinctly
manifested by the ballots which css for Trustees OF
Public Schools There were no Trustees to DO voted for al
cast hi, ballot for Trustses OF Pube Schools There va, no
officer having exactly tina, name then 70 be voted tor bni