New-York daily tribune., 1865-12-30
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
Ar Important Report OF Referee In
Favor of the City.
CHARLES DEvLIN ACT. THE CITY

Mr., Deyln sued the city, some two years since,
for s for work alleged to have been done to Fifty
eventbt the New Bowery Fiy seoondst Seventy ninth
M Fourthsve and Delsneeys and clsimed interest nom
the Is. Of November 1885, making total claim oil soos'
$4,000
Judge Barnard n February 1864 referred the action and
all the i,sues therein 10 the Hon. John B. Hsskn who alter
having had sdduced before him $50 psses Of printed
testimony hiss determined the by giving the following
reports
srparxy CorKr Civ and County Of N,,c York.-ChsIes
D.yn sg Tie Mayor Aldermen, and Commonety OF the
City Of Nev-York PnUsnt TO order entered herein on
29b dsy Of February 1864 whereby referred TO me
Ito hes end determine all the issues IN the soo'e ehe"
John B. Hsssn the Referee named the said order do
qSSt have Been attended on th. reference by the plaintiff
and James Brady ESQ., and ', Wark.; ~ Wism G.
Tr ESQ., and Joseph ~. DUkes esq: OF counsel ioT De
fndan, snd have taken nch proofs and heard '0ch a
tious ss were sdduced before me. -. 81,
do further repo tha, from the proofs before me- find the
following conclusion, Of fact and law a to inc n caq'e
aud grading ISm the Third 70 the I'm NaI
mentioned the pesdug and proofs was never conrmedby
the Common Council.
Second That no appropriation Of money covering the tt
n.nse incident 20 the performance and carrying out of the
contract with Quinn made by the Common Council
CoaoEsion of LGrlhat the defendants are entitled 70
ndmen dsnsng the complaint to the hst cause oi &C.
do that from the rrosf before find the
-ro set forth the compnut b,ng the work OF sustng
Fify.secoud st. from Tenthsye 20 East River:
C0Hcuti0h: Qf Fde-FUsf: Thst the ordinance snthoi,
iziug and directing Fityseconds 70 be regulated and
rrs6ed did not pass adopted by both Boards Of
the Common Council IN the year. and that the contract
ith plaintiff confirmed by the Common Council
Second That appropriation Of money covering The e1
incident TO the performance and carrying OCT OF te
with Devn made BY the Common 1ounc
ConcHfoa Of Lorrhat the defendants ore entitled 70
judgment Diminishing The compliant as TO the second cause o
do further report that from the proofs before fnd the
following conclusions Of iac and law 90 the thd cause o
seton act forth complaint bong for tho wofk oil reg
uatiug and grading the Bowery, hom ChAlhtHSqsie 10
/ FTenk hn-squGre, AZ Doyer-st: 80
CJacigs0ns Of FGcfFUst That no appropriation covering
u eHpene incident 90 the performance Oi the NoGA "a'
ever made BY the Common Couci -.
Second That the defendants employed the pstun u
perform said work any part therecf
Third: That the derndsnis never executed the cohtra
mentioned In the third o. action set forth in the com
Conciufion, ofIdr-Ths the defendant, entitled e
judgment dsusius the complants ss 70 the ihd cause
! action.
DO further report that, from the proofs before M. I'm,
the following concu sons Of feet and aw, 20 the t1t
cause Of cti0n forth in the complaint, being the worA
1ssgin- dewa Is IN font Of Nos 3ii and 3t Deanryst
Cncu4ionfo FdcFIt Thstthe work wa, never author
/ zei by the Common CCunciL 80
Second That the necessity q the work was never cerhe
! TO BE- the head Of tie sppr9pia department
Ih.rd. That appropriation covering the expense OF m
! work made by the Common Council.
CnoH.iOa Of IduThst the defendants are entitled e
udymeni diminishing the complaint IS to TIE "i'h cause
DO further report that End al conclusion Of isw tia
fhe dsndsntshsve sFainst plaintiff cifntfg ~
complaint al tie Of action contained therein wt
costs. ke'pe -tullh '9bmtied r.,
! JoHS b. HAsKIS, Referee
/ Dated Dee,abey 4 1865