The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-04-22
IMPORTANT 70 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
How Mistakes by the Gty's Counsel
May be Corrected.
CURIOUS RIOT SUITS AND JUDGMENTS
INTERESTING DECISION OF JUDGE MCNEIL.



BY the piantn husband and wife, against tho city, in
consequence Of damage 10 their property BY the famous
Of dram riots In this city The wife the Ia fec
the property and the husband merely tenant BY courtesy
having life estate in the property. The husband how
ever obtained the larger verdict owing 10 mistake In
computing his life interest by tho Carlyle annuity tables
instead Of tho Northampton tablesL Tho Judgments
obtained during the term Of once Of Corporation
Counsel Devn, but the accession 70 once Of Mr..
Richard OGorman the mistakes were discovered and .
motion made for leave 10 retry the 10 open
the Judgments for correction The question argued
very slaborassly few weeks ago by NessrA oGornan
Trail for tho city and Msssrs G. L Sanford and
B. Woodruff ON tho other side
Judge Mcneil has madc the following decision in the
case, after mature renecton:-
OPINION or JUDGE MoNELL.
Two actions brought against the Corporation OF
tho city Of New York 70 damages for injury TO
the building on the southeast corner OF Broadway and
Twenty ninth street. known No. 1872 broadway. In
July 1883 mob Of rioters attacked the building set 1t
fire. and totally destroyed One Of such actions
brought by the plaintiff 70 recover for injury TO his
estate In the promises tenant by the courtesy initiate
and the other OF such actions brought by Ann Greer
the vito Of tho plaintiff for injury her
estate as of the fee. Tho plaintiffs action
tried by Justice OF this court and jury and resulted
in an assessm ent of the injury 70 the plaintiffs
estate for $50 500 for which sum, with interest he OBJ
tanned verdict motion made upon the Justices
minutes for a new trial, which denied. Judgment
the General Term Of this Court from both judgment
AMI order The case made by the defendants for tho
purpose of presenting the questions OF fact and law TO
be reviewed by tho General Term contained part OF
the evidence gwen the trial and only single excep
ton, namely TO the allowance Of interest Certain facts
said to have been established namely, the nature
Of the plaintiffs estate the destruct OF tho buildings
and the value money Of the injury TO the plaintiffs
life estate; but evidence furnished to the Court
70 enable to determine whether the plaintiffs damages
ascertaned upon correct principles There being
evidence 70 review and the only exceptions taken being
wtAlIxr shn al Oh
judgment and order The action brought by Ann Greer
subsequently tried by another Justice Of this court
.sSshsd the whole value A OF the properly d.
stroyed at and not exceeding $37 400. The age
Of George Greer her husband was asceraned 70 be sixty
nine The Justice thereupon compsted the value OF his
life estate upon the principle applicable 70 life annuitcs
and deducted such value from the gross vauo Of tho pro-
perty destroyed and gave judgment In favor OF Ann
Greer for the remainder In ascertanng tho value Of tho
lfo estate the Justice computed the interest upon tho
whole value e. e. $37 4oo at six per cent and multi
piled the interest by the number OF years purchase fur
nised by the Carlyle annuity tables such computation
was made pursuant TO the directions contained In tho
putation such The value Of Ann Grccrs estate
the owner Of the fee thus established $2s 94
1aking however, the sum OF $50 go, recovered by
George Greer as tho value Of bis life estate and the sum
Of S23 794 recovered by Ann Greer the value Of her
estate, we have an aggregate Of or 1924 more
than tho entire and highest premium value OF the whole
property destroyed motion s now made 10 set aside
open the judgment recovered In favor OF George
Greer and for trial. that tho defendants be per-
mitied their moiion for trial upon the
minutes OF the court and for resecmcnt of the case
prepared for the appeal by inserting therein tho evil
dcnce given the trial, and for q reargu.
ment thereof Upon this motion II appears
that considerable evidence givon on tho
necessary 10 enable Jury the value OF his
Ife estate; and IL further appears that the principle
present value Of the rents aud profits Of premises
for year and multiplying such value by tho number
OF years, which, by the annuity tables would be the
probable duration OF the plaintiffs life No deduction
appears have been made for taxes repairs or nsnr
ance the two former OF which chargeabe upon the
life tenant; there any reduction rebate Of In
tercst upon the annual rental thus In effect paid In adj
for the ensuing six or seven years. This motion
is now upon the ground that through mistake IN
adverenco otherwise the plaintiff has recovered
least S69l4 more than upon any principle properly
applicable TO tho facts Of the case he II entitled to re-
cover I do not entertain doubt that the plaintiffs
recovery large, and therefore clearly OF the
opinion that n we'll settled principle Of law or OF tho
practice tho violated the defendants ought 10
have an opportunity 10 correct the The power 10
do 30 given In express terms by tho 1I3th section OF
the Code which provides that the court IN M osctcon'
and upon such terms shall be just may relieve par
ty from Judgment, error or other proceeding taken
against him 'through his mistake, inadvortsnce, sur.
prise or excusabe neglect cannot persuade myself
that mode Of ascerainng tho damages In this case
adopted by the assented 10 by the Counsel
10 the Corporation upon full and careful examination
OF the question Indeed Il does not appear that any
question the correctness OF the rule was raised on
tho trial. and seems to have been taty assumed that
Il the rule am therefore, led 10 believe
through inadvcrtencc, or porhaps excusabe neg
lect or mistake OF the counsel for the defendants tho
allOWeu 10 20 70 tne jury upon Wnht u'om W
havo been clearly erroneous rule OF damages Under
such circumstances can have no hesitation In opening
the case for renyessisa,,on. .no The, n ,sNha.
In seeking relief from mistakes are generally
complete answer 10 a motion for such relief and
closely any attempt avoid consequence which party
has brought upon himself by hts own act, and great
DELAY in applying for relief always Of
Suspicion and viii Incline the mind 10 doubt good
faith tho application. But where there IN reason
able ground 10 question tho integrity OF the application
and where no principle OF law viii be invaded and the
neglect 10 excused there should DO reluctance 10
afford relief This action defended by the Counsel
70 the Corporation, who IL the Law officer Of the city
Tho answer the defendants put all the aegs
tons In The plaintiffs complaint The action was tried
the NAY TORN 70 - e aoa sns ,s S.., anon
which the jury 70 estimate the piantns damages
given and the Jury we're instructed 70 adopt the rule
the CORPORATION Counsel ss the correct rule The case
on tho appeal was heard In tho succeeding October
general rm aud decided At the November general term
The Incumbent Of the once Of the Counsel 70 the Cor
poraon daring these proceedngs was succecded IN bis
once BY tho present counsel on the LIST Of January last
and pending suits and proceedings against the Cor
poraion that time delivered 70 him IL does not
appear that tho complained OF vas discovered
BY the lats Corporation Counsel, who does not appear
70 have been any doubts could be entertained
Of the of the rule adopted and 70 which he
yielded on tbs s 10 aouDs oss' naa,.s 9bon
he entered upon his once found mas OF unfinished
legislation which, with his other duties constantly .ccu
mulang rendered n impossible N investigate
all the case. his once Yet this motion 10 made 10
little two months from his assumption OF once.
The Counsel the Corporation Independents depart
s s,ni d. iuhs5s,sns ~ @s county r.
has charge OF and responsible foe the
conduct Of all suits and proceedings against the city
To him are couhded Interests Of great magnitude
and importance and hts duty Independently o. any
other department 20 defend the city and The taxable IN
habtants thereof against all stons which IN bis Juds
ment cannot be sustained and 10 also his duty, when
ever In Judgment the interests o. the city and IL tar
able inhabitants require u, 70 institute lawful proceed
ings 10 restrain them from any Improper bwthen And
the duty the les imperative vhether the burhsr
bss been imposed through mistakes Of himssf Of h'
predecessor Ia once, MISTAKES OF any ohcr depart
| ment Of the city government The d neglect
which applied 10 against individuals for the
own acts OF neglect for which they themselves rc~rn
sIble ought not be applied 70 pubic sDconsres re-
preventing parties who made liable for acss oms
i sions Of which they ignorant The principle Of h'