New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-02-21
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SUPREME COURT-CBANBEKs--fEB 2o-Bvfore Jus,c


SUPREME COURT-CBANBEEs-fEB M-Bvfore Justice
BAKSAKD
Tuy PORT G,ssEvooRT PURcHasR-THE CASE DE-
PORE The SUPREME cOURT-cAs Mr.. TAYLOR
GIVE The CITY PERFECT TITLE, AND is TIE
CONTROLLER BOUND TO PERFECT The PUR-
CHASE The ARGUMENT II IHE CASE.
The argument on the motion for n maDdamus 20
compel tbs Controller to complete the preh"e OF he Fort
ing for the plaintih. The case IL this:
On the 3th Of January affidavit was presensd to Judge
Barnard made by James TAILOR showing thu. on the 80 Of
November he sddre.ed wt~n offer to the Mayor. Alder
and Cotnmonaty OF the CITY OF New.Yerk oteii TO
sell the property known the 1t property for
tho specified in the odeT that the ohei acted
IN to Common Council and resulted IN the passage d sreso
luton the I'd dsy Of January 1868 directing
Controller to make the purchase and for the property
by the issue Of the bonds Of the city for the aggregate Of
$3.50 4J7 5O that pursuant TO the offer ard acceptance
Taylor on the Sd day Of February le63 executed
cred the Controller deed 81 the premises TO the
terms Of aud dcnaoded payment Of the purchase
money cash In the bonds Of the city that the
Controller refused payment 10 cs.h on the ground that there
was no appropriation and refused to Issue hs boBds tho
grounds stated by him IL seonmqnieaon to the Common
Council bearing date tho I'd day Of fobuaJ 1868 and that
the ground stated 10 that that tue tito Of
the grau,ors ueisn and that the Controller based h
refusal Coey the grounds stated 10 that communication
Upon thst affidavit order to show cause why the
mus should not is'ne was granted
The Controller appeared by the corporation Council,
pursuant 20 order and submitted idsvis containing tho
round. Of hi. refusal 10 sue bonds The pinc Of which
Simeon Draper interested IN the sale by
tbs CT v he being officer Of the Corporation sod
such c'Pacsed to purchase real so sm , too iy In
psr for $4,000 paid the e on account Of the
purchase money.
In answer TO that allegation tho following edsyits from
Draper and VATRum were preeentci:
CRY and County Of Asi0- York, a.:
simeon Dfepe Of ssd city being dJlJ deposos and
that The Acts aud circumstances relating 70 III, connec
oOn with the sale Of tue land rsthe GatsoyooH prop
ey BY city Of Newi oIk Ia tbs 1857 were as io
lows: Acr sale had taken place tbd before die deed Lad
bee" made learned that tue purchaser was Lov'jo,
aud ~ pfoVoed ~ thot. % he party OF whom The
pnrcbsss Irfay made fouDd hims troubled TO maze
the cah payment should pay The $1,000 ieqadee and DO
come Interested In the purchase TO the extent VI Onfhd
coGaesd TO do condition that could control the prop
sry, aud Ober aud lsreed tia. when vdJ deed was
given BY the purchasers from the Corporation aud I'll" prop
city conveyed 10 ne. would pay tho OUV. aud give
Lortgige Tor tNe balalce.
Subsequently, orTineed with the Controller 20 acccP.
- o pace u Mr. IpyeJoy the pur bssf nIuAe tho
aefd directly 20 theIeupon paid The money $4,000
bot beole s decd delivered 10 tbs tion came
~ - 10 Nh ther ut She city could LEGALLY Jea property
10 NE D. CO. feqa"rce n my beng Governor OF the Ams-
hois tubnHtcd hs lo,uon u my COUNSEL and upon
NE tee, I'D tsLs tn. iit AMI 81 Airoe from the
phcNae act know M. L,yejoy before Le rsfcla'o
We. ~ ~ ma nor had anytiugio do with the cay au'
hoiutt or e purchase elhsf Directly or Indirectly and was
yTongi to the consideration Of only few days before the