New-York daily tribune., 1865-10-28
se probability Of sseceedrs appeal and sehss Iou'
tfsly. MAJ I. BHsxsAs' Contrv~S"
On tho 9Th Of June tbis is the reply
Carr Or new -Y0RK Law DssAarssH(
OYrcH on CoCssKL TO THr CoRP0nAriossss

J1k HON MATHEW II. DKKFxAS, Co"s
enee to the case OF Donovan ss The Mayor Sc would
eded By the Judges the Supreme Court 70 ee on
ensbe that defense has been me Poseo ~ ,y
nlrd 1he correctness Of these decision. depends etti,si
upon the construction to be given to the DIVISIONS .,
provision. Of n. h section Of tn. same charter s to cer
est~ OF the necessity Of e,Penciuie sno Us no.
!, ectory then there can be question the
hese decisions IT, on the other nnd uev sre 70 o oo @
nad In d regard Oh void then these De
csio, The courts held IN ms Guy hs~o ~
r Insrsham decided the fact that there was
20 appropriation tnted defense to the osi .,
~, who had rendered seY,es IN ceanng the punic stfee
In Dy opinion drcsiou correct and Just one.
srn unable perceive the distinction between me csc
borcr who renders service In c sning street and the ce
Of labor.r render, service ia repairing see OF puD
lie road. Truly yourr. JOIN r.. phrSns, VIE, ,,,,on
On tho s4h. pah and 18th OF July 1865, Mr. Brennan
writes to MI Deven as ioilows:
Cwr on EEw YoEK. pgpAEraEsr op IryMcx'
CosrEOLLEss OFFICE. July ~ 1859
III. Hon. JoHs r. LEvKLis CoHn'a 10 tAe c07porahon T.
1885, in viii the defense Of want Of appropriation Las been
nterpo-d have agreed to coupIcmi,e BY dedacns Gss s
court being expressly undrseod ,tat allow ance 70 ee
made Tor interest VIII you do ne The favor TO have tic
Yours truly, MAr1WwT. BRENNAN, Controller
CRY or Nav YORK. DEPARrnssr OF iiSAsch
CosrRoLLrR's OFFICE. July 70. 1855
Hse JonS Z. DKysus Cou"',t 20 e Corrgrst,o1. al o,.x
that his client. all demand interest their claims. would
therefore modify IN, ohI in such cases 50 as :" nclooe ne
MATTHEW 4. BRxssAS, Controller.
NEw.YoRk CcsTRoLLHns oy,rcs. July 20 1853
Hon JoBs h. DEvKfIK Coun,d TO the Cooperation.
DxAR SIN: The tho snouIt' entered on the
ru-d service in November and December 1885, silef Ae sp
psoprison for that year had been .xLanstd. -,
(fi~te follow hundrd ana fifty eight names with
opposite them amounting III the aggregate to the
sun I" *'"'~ ~ msmmrwf BnrssAs. Controller
will fai TO he noticed that the charge s1snN h Dey
els e mont q Jsiy flse5) e 'ofdeoSr. 1tth'
yectss Of sis oa easntsd thar the pLRffs ia erh oj te
ad r,,1ec''re sm .so.h or j1cgmnfyc,a es'f0'" a"'
Tr. The wrsngfui eond,ct l.sed Yet the demurrer
had previously bee argued and decided sssist tho city st
Term Of tse saprems Coar dated TIE h dsy Of March
l0s3 affirming the Judgment at Special Term 40 tha u wa.
. city In all the bsiches OF the Supreme Court that these
perfected by the eonsnt OF Sr DeveiD snd
ecsiy.d BY him from the Controller to tue amount
zach demand and yet tbe reckless heler who presrd
on Of the case had and without any know sd-e Of
of tho claims The orders OF the court the
chsr,e either known be false preferred the
rr.on Who made bad knowledge Of rs ruth or fasty
tue !. n-ede.. and di,ass subject you
viii d., the ehsre, when your Judgment !. pronounced
The hrd Of official niseondoct relates 10 wha
/. Ino~u the Psinsr saits," and Is as iolows;
Speculation Thireln this, thai In the mouths o. 'uDe
Ernr. Palmer commenced separate suits against
the .sd M.yOr Aldermen snd Conuopaty Of sd city to re
cover agyrrgste. shout the 81 Sba Sos a. Tor al
@ ss dvese persons IN cleaning the streets Of sad
cy which ss gd claims slcged be assigned to said
ona amt comp The said Dey.n. Corporation Counsel
,h. .'d Dy,en. the same day n some cases. and
runs, .al Corporation Council to allow Joden n as DE-
uand in said summons 20 be snsIsd ssan.' nc ,sd .y
saely lse within Two dsy- alter tie service o! 1 sun
m. - s.tA
s.s.rsiBinx that the Lemons to whom the city Was
40 alleged be Indebted had valid claims asainf The
e,y nnd h.i bcen paid the ssid claims, had assigned
80. eiaius to aid Palmer That sid Counsel. DeveIn.
vel knew that .d judgments for ersnns The s,d 'ett.
Of th State for clrning tie re and well knew
Tat the Of ..d elsi and esovrry o. jud men
,S.,-on was an evasion Of ,ar . and a.,sd such
zen Tb~ the nodu, opsrsndi follows The City In
.pccor Hsde requon. for money psy for street lean
bs, the Mayor Controller ard City nsp~cor OF said city
czscui~d proaory note tor ih- anount Of aid rcqn'noo
and deyad the SANE to said Francis A. diner who wa.
Pr- dent Of ,he Brosdway bsnk in which Bank the Cham
besn Of ,ad city deposited the fond. Of said ely hst said
ar discounted said With tie fund Of said cy that
.i Controller with th. pfooeeds paid the rsqui'sions Of
"a. ssd city Rsp-cor and TOOK peended TO take ssssn
ell p-rons rad 10 said Palmer who conmrnce
ss the-on shove stlt.d That said Counsel D,yen sd
we'd with ,h, foregoing oHeA. in al such Processing. and
sads ths law and to ~ pretended purposes OF rc-
c.nn. va, three nn.s greater than ihOe appropriated
by law for G pirpo'e That schedule b annexed iss copy
OF one OF ssd Judgment.
You hv already heard osethns Of the circumstances out
bis char, In the argument 81 mr brennans
y.,srdsy and the fssts believe entirely un
coptiovssd There arose necessity OF rfsorting - come
for t.sninf the s,as, Of the city for the pe-rystion
public ncah, and there money in the treasury
-h1h eesd be .ppisd e ths. object wshSSs ss.sy.
,hod 30 eanrd aud this several OF the OH
sa.ss,. vtcR ~sto a.cocutsd BY Mr. E, President
tue EreadwA Bank snithe money thus 1ened used
cleaning public streets This proceeding Hpproycdsy
Council aud tho faith Of ha Coporstisn pledged
repayment Of tha money thus obtained and dsbsed
The claims OF ihe vsrs Psrsons employed IN cleaning te
of the city paid out OF The iund rtsod IN the
before stated paid. ssned to M Pala
be sub.queIty semm-nced sewers salts ssAs' tie city
"a rreOvrr tic amounts thss advanced
The complaint sgst, Mr. Develn Is that be did nat con.
the suits but conssst.d to Judgment, in favor Of tho
snh not t,sed that there defense 10 these
suit. which could have been srccessfuly iDterpo~ed
ard difficult 10 imagine any. the Common Council had
formally adopted hswhoe ln.scsu and pedsei the faith
Of tho city TO the payment tie cAm certainly was
no p,r al Of the Corporation Counsel Up
DO enfrs s.d subject the city to IL l. said aso
lat sir p,ven r.ye sdyice to tho Mayor aud others IN
p,ct the actions resulting In these suits but what
advice he gave the des not inform We have
tray scarcely rresnded. bItt "a not Necessary spend
any details for the ~hea subject has undersons
York and rrcsiyed the approval eftke Court and not be-
eved ihst part OF the duty OF the Governor 70
henon ths, yUsr EKt cheney wu incline TO say such
Jurisdiction.
have tho record to show that while some or QUO Of the
suits beoasht by Mr. Palmer pending. NJ. Joha Hscker
bill the Supreme Court against tis CORPORATION Of
the city MI Gunhcr the Mayor Mr Brennan Controller
Mr. Hooio City INSPECTOR; M Devein. Corporation Coui
sci; Mr. Dos,m, CITY ChsmbcrsR. and Mr.. Palmer. the
OF tha oblo.ioGs claims Mr. HeaAors bill brought
ctrs Mr Palmer originated. Upon his ol injunction
obtained pare restraining the different Iac. toa
doing certain things and rnong Others the defendant John
T.. Devein Corportion Counsel, Is erloned from Gnhor
ing the defendant franss A. Palmer any other panlii
to take udgun upon any oll.r further aisnn rnt OF
,spmsr,s from any person or pet.ons for work done or
asg ged TO be DONE III The Gle sning Of the streets, under any
employment wefrart authority Of tn said City Inspector
L. |. A. Booe"
need detan you by reading Of the injunction or
pert OF tne bh Of complaint out wal be seen by sncI
- .Ia'. AL.