The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-05-14
SUPREME couRT-ssNeaAl TERM.

The Transfer Of the Licensing Power-The
Cesstitutionality or the Provisions Of the
Tax Levy to be Tested DC.
Before Judges Leonard, Ingraham and Smith.
An interesting case has been prepared and submitted
= this court which win test the consttutonay Of the
twelfth section Of the City TAI Levy, which revokss the
power hitherto exercised by the Mayor Aldermen and
Osmmonaly Of the city Of New York. and by the pro-
Of which that power vested in the Metropolitan
Police Commissioners The argument in the case has
As city will be represented BY exudge Allen and Dud
~ Field and A. J. vanderpool and ex-Judss Woodruff
VAN appear for Tho Poiica Commissioners
RoAsieal GamblSsg-Ls IN Asssan@ens q .
GaahiIax Dsos valiAe
Asssot kDcs9sd, elpeEask ~ TA0n Ws1iaes Rapss-
Ane-h Tsbrumy. 1sst - pasis6R bst elD with Wall
- 0a1JsG Davis oe1misDionsss Weula boin Washins-
- nsgssiahng fos twns q psscs within tws weeks ffoa
0su.s ef nakiss n vAgsx TAs ceun,sisn ssrss
~ IN appearances . me capital wishis Che specified
49, - y iss sxDistoa hcDcssn directed Rs.tlsaA
- staksholdsr 70 surrender the stakes 70 wallipg,
&hsh accordingly DONE In the following June the
ssssvsy Of the money lost and paid over BY lis own in
sucson Upon receiving notification Of this fact Wall
o.s in witch AS =. sSs
8 sSooc bus which aid not By the returns appear to
= ~ go THIS latter claim ne defendant intended 70
ssss ag.inst The claim q The plaintiff me plaintiff
svssrplsd, and nom TINS order the appeal 3 taksn
mo respondent contends thai there = diatncsioa
= money lsst woa q bspns ana ,6s go o. money
- Won q gaming and thas the Judgment overriding
- ssss s.S q no. q s =: a.
Enable, and that the judgment overriding the demurrer
GAsald BE- reversed Decision reserved ~
ne Payment or Bsunsy % volusteers During
abe War-Coassrucsien Or the Acts Of abe
Legislature.
Z Before Judges Leonard, IngrahAm and Smith.
Edmund J. Powers repsadex, John Shepard ap-
yeIlss. This was an appeal from an order denying
MOTION 70 dismiss the complaint
The action was brought upon an agreement made in
March, 1885, contracting for the payment 70 plaintiff Of
$3.50 consequence Of advance In the price Of three
ysars' volunteers during the year 1885, the plaintiff
having previously agreed 10 furnish seventeen volunteers
~ the purpose Of filing the quota OF the town Of Sparta
Livingston county, in this State. Defendant
upsvisor Of that town. and the original contract fixed
~ price per man at $500. II ives admitted that the
nsA were furnished, and ON the conclusion Of the
which was denied and upon which order this appeal
saken The court directed the jury TO nnd for The
- coart Al General Term upon escsssions
In February 1895 the Legislature passed an Get pro
vng for the raising Of men and money for the purpose
- furnishing recruits 70 the army. Another act was
passed in me same month, in which the hrst was
framsd and which declared 70 take effect immedL
ssely declaring that abe provisions Of the second sc
should take eject until aferthe people upon
sections thereof The defendant chims that by
virtue OF the former oct individual hAd right
ngree pay higher that 5000 for three years
volunteer and II he did The contract void. This 10
the principal ground Of appeal rherespondent con-
ssnds that the nrs acs far ~ II conflicts with the
~ Is nconsigent with IL 10 repealed BY the
~ and after recifing numerous authorities says that
a. England whore too sets passed ~ the
81 Parliament contradictory to each other the latter
Win prevail and win have the effect Of repeating the
formsr Caseargued decision reserved For the respond
Gni Ira d Warren: for the appellant T. Freeman