New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-01-16
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SUPREME COURT-CHAMBERs-JAS. H-Befors Jusaoe
IE0RAuAH
THE STREET CLEANING cogTEsr-ISJUNCTIoy DIS

SUPREME COURT-CHAnBERs-JAN h-bsfoTs Jn'hoe
IEoRAuAH.
THE STREET CLEANING coNrEsT-NJUNCT1oS DIS
SOLVED.
John Heeher sgt. The Mayor, kc., e.al.
Judge Ingraham rendered an opinion this morning
d,olyns the Injunction which rsstrned payment Of the
street sweepsrs
There was police force IN tho building Int there was no
dsordeIy demonstration the liborer standing quietly front
of the building Asr the decision rendered they gave
three loud cheers
The following /. an sb'.r.ct Of the opinion, ,,, y.
granted upon the vsrhcstiop q the plant In.
swsy, been tn; ro. aid va. 20 before the
IT, .s,.s s' e. j. 'afS .T III
a a s.a sS ' R ia 'sS
that infOrn.ion and belief arc TC
toned psopis act III. Mayor Abb. Pr, a's; Fowler 's
Inc ordinance. 9th. Common Council provide for The
sgSn es 0fs ; Of S:i Sf fsf P
paren, chat tho whos charge and supervision Of cleaning he
.,reet. whether by contract OF Shs, msans rs
fomed the mode BY law foi h h
paOe he i. the sener. agent o. ne fy VINO "''H 'Ns
MOI 81, only In osreuce the cleaning Of the streets ths
purpee, he hs authority employ to work ior the Cor
poraton either by contract or ~ Al tsee W
led Of within hs ,eass ~, ',ops o. l ~
sai When 40 ployed they becor. entitled claim On the
CITY conIren "a ion or the services they may render
IL NAV ,. doubted whether under the proVons In the city
ehser .nI under provisions In the Act Of 1894 he CITY
Inspector any authority 10 employ persons 70 Clean
the fleets ercep, by contract under ls general powers Is
City Inspector Ether the Board OF Health OF inc ~
five such directions would make them sbs
p.tss employed II done In any way dheren
from that contemplated BY the statute How iar they would
be responsible FOR such acts ~ y.o1 Of ne law n1
necessary for me inquire The City lnzPector nov"
Ia. he control and duty Of the 'ieee u 'one
provided BY .w, which work Is done ~ Nm u
and TO do WHICH be by Law particularly charged tnoss
son. EMPLOYED by him such purposes are net IN my Jud
mont before doing days labor TO- stop and deeLmns
whether N. City Inspector setting In exact conformity 10
the law whether tho wos going on In the exact ioLn
which some has presch6ed The 10" presunes IN.
osesr .ctns In eonfoI%y with h aay ana o. HIN
IN h. oEdnsry course OF business unaef tns 'Ioss ~
10 the sans ssump,l5n. . 4. .
Bat admitting there ws some doubt % 20 the correctnesS
q these ,w' think such d0ss! ''10S.a n 1 in,Ds ea
they passed the resolution requesting tho mayor 20 en
the note o Of the and engaging 70 ndeih
nifty the parties to ssiam any liability 81 dass 10 % '4'
Ths Corporation o. tho City orNewYork resisted the claim
Of the vorfn~n snd denied the authority Of their ocet 70
employ the to do tie work. the question "'ue " very
Ts remedy prevent such 0tion Of law entirely or
from Conflicting the labor Of those who h,v;
or r rcd services ,he beneh Of the public
. .Is t the law % Il. Soy ~Sci ach Violation
How FAR the esorted for obtsnug payment for
these note, rven Palmer consistent hh law am not
Il can hardly DO oon.nd.d that the Leg.tu. when pro
vdns for the psymen, OF adsmen recovered against hs ely
during year. contemplated that such provisions should e
r purpose Of paying for work which thoy had pro
hsd 0 being SSoS e5ssD' h sar ws could b.
directly 10 difficult to hpd authority for making such
payment in TIA, bear oshsT nsTe than an cy.
valid and should bs paid and that the In junction he
,astaiHsd Motion 70 dissolve the Injunction granted