The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-09-25

have demands against the city FOR labor services upoa
~ RgnTays oRasr ~ gsi2 sasinss
The ty that IN these SUITS under the direction Of the
on tSe caehar r trial FOR several months un
July last when the Comptroller agreed tn.s tudsmen
shoum re enaeed Up e ~ 2, 49, = ,th1 * ~
costs 70 the amount OF go % 20 e.n sS c."S cor1S
newer Ss proved s ia. ne. were !. i''S "a.
lent and eus me cry Wa chsrsa ~ 4 trus ana
s 81: = ,s.sos e fssssis9: sssnsa: y, RI :;
longing The Of NE men o. hssrsS IN
aspoesa 70 hs S's nS srS q EMPLOY
their challenge ID the production Of incorporea
as their spiritual advisers may suggest Procees
r state all 'ha' An0W aD1S. w '''s'4'''. =,
M Fields brought large number OF epA how many
% not Sa vS, s ,s ~ss :s sse
rsss st Sor each clsimant No person connected With
the 10 USua control m 81 worked on tie
ross Int ars not asd for the reason which was urged
in TIE Hecksr that appropriation had been %aas
sSberd u Ri. ,a The defence was presented on one
trial IN tho action Of one Donovan, and the question w
ss Ne ss .seass w1t ne
me .a Ts ns ~ ~ cs The ssme ruling whA
judge Insraba made in the Hooker case or this was
i aaysseq u ~ y, snS the following r.
ie''er' OF winch ING 'vo",ns - copy sl,ai
oqclsa % or,o. o. cOv.'iI 70 sHs SOsrSR i
Hon MATHEW r. BRxsxAs Comptroller, &c. ~
DIAE sain ansTsr . your So%@uSlc.tion With ss
that the defence nterposeS u that case has sssn e.
Sdsd x OF ne ssnse Sas bocn ntsrposcd
every record Il she and hss been inssS.Sy
TREY upon the construction ths provisons
Pr ;sss lie ssss
xps snS nd its authorization by he Common Council
H. the other hand they arc q Dc construed :.
tory 70 The s1tsHs that AZ Wa haS Ssse ere
The cOufT held si % ssss
ham expressly decided that the fact thst here WAS no
s1 ssnass:d ss:ains 20 public ~,
Ma ss
R''''' 'e ;SHs COUNSEL = oespo..o.
rhs ss.s ssysss On :: sydss
the rsccrd that thsss men hsd psrsomsd soe 80 va
Then concluded that the amounts due them shoul4
b paid there being allowed 70 the ciy deououon
o. ths amount Of ecu n esss 49, .smsns
could make. =. ,-s. 4. %
II Is well 70 state inst such suits must % nrougns Y
By statute the plsints on recovery % no I 49,
W had no means 70 limit humble. Of suite NJ
add that there vas no legal method q s9c% 70
OWE separate serace& And the suits instead Q! Dene
settled, had been allowed p rmain ~ ~ x.sis1
costs would have oonunueo 70 ~ S % S1's
ceets4 The amount IN conuovefy IN escn g" 60, ,,t,
rnx yuporRNrs FOR FIFTY -oNu THOUSAND IN .
NJ d1 ain 81 jzusDnrD DOLL ARsi A9ladoAo yboof
This n snothsr Hsrriok ohargss ssgng Mat Duuyta
IL Allowed iudrmens by default against the ey dnNe
,se y, ~ =. ner.,s 1y6ord Tor ~ IN ~ 60
,,S "a ~. and one IN favor Of - butler fer - r.
the costs bsirc S2i ST. all OF which Judgments we pe
No.r Sor Al fhis an In NO Wsy responehle Jhosu1l
vsrs ~ ,ork and materals on The public roadn dGr11
The nts Nv Art kpowledee Of the litigations NA&0
transcrpts Of the Judgments wsrs presented 70 nj
tSs6 ~ rsvrent by The Counsel az ~ oogDGi11Qn
AZ ~ the amount of costa regret that The Ilgatq
has not made some provision 70 remedy thu aAh1e
control IT, Costs adjusted or taxsa AoceedluU1 49,