New-York tribune., 1867-02-23
CIVIL COURTS.

Of COONoEL'
The People Fernando Wood agt Connolly Controller &c
In March. 1863. Mr.. Wood being the owner of the
buildings Nos lis and 1T Nassau-st, leased portion OF
them TO the city at a rent Of ss,20O 5000 being
for offices for the Corporation Counsel and s6Oo each
for the offices of the Corporation Attorney ana fuDnc
Administrators. Tho Corporation Counsel never oo
cupied these Offices took others at No so Nassaus
for 1911 600 The lease from Mr.. Wood to the city ex-
pred May 1866 In December 1865, the Common Council
by resolution approved by tho Mayor, authorized ana
directed the Controller TO execute new lease OF the
same premises at 5000, for the Corporation COuhsels
office and 900 for each OF the other oces amounting
together to per anm for the further term OF zen
years copy of this resolution was dehVereu 70 Nr
Wood who accepted the terms, ana had eases 1ram tt
submitted to the Corporation Counsel VINO lnaIkEu oe
"approved" and rendered them to the G9ntIoHsr, no
fng him at the same time that he should consider the
continuance OF occupancy by the cy an accebtanceo
the lease The Controller declined to execute the lease
but the Corporation Attorney ana fuohc hunii''i"'
continued to occupy the premises. - 49,. ono -,
In December 1866, Mr. Pullman VINO WS w. 'n t U The H
then Controller and Mr. Wood to restrain the execution Oh
the lease and injunction was issued by MI JusVco
In January last ction was commenced IN ,e nao ,
of the Mayor &c Of the City Of New YORK 10 ucCdu 'o
resolution void as having been opteud d ohtD3 g pg
bribery On the sth of this month MI WOOD optaeu i
alternative writ of mandamus To the present Co h
TO execute this lease, and pay the reequarers rent MIN
interest then DUE or show cause 10 lne La caI
matter was rcturnabe Monday, and came UP OH tho o'
The writ Of mandamus this set out that the CITY
~ ,Sc1 % rooms Nos + 4 & g. g. and 10 first floor
and No 2 Of second floor Of Nos il5 and III SaSau
for the Corporation Counsel, and rooms Nos ahu v
first floor and the whole center OF first ioOroi uo
ings for the of the Corporation AuoneI, @ ~ ne
n ia II and the second floor for thc ust vi tue
Public Administrator. That on the l4tn OF Dt%cCn,DR % ~
1865. the Mayor and Common Counc io n or ~
rccted The Controller the lease Tor oyeas AT
S 600 per for the Corporation CounseI VI, oces
and 5000 each Of the others, ana that Mr Noou a
ccned bc propoeal for the lease the terms proposed
and prepared leases IN conformity WIN the IoiC ~
and the new rents and submitted the leases prepared 10
the Corporation Counsel who approved their form ana
then submitted the leases % the Controller hollhE nm mi
that the occupation ~ the premises by the COip1Ido
after the Ist of NAV 1896 would be considered by him nn
acceptance That no response was given ana the Col
poralion Attorney ana me public AurhntA""1i rht NJ
continued TO occupy the room Inat Mr
Wood has since pre"'9d the leaSc !" iir r str,tcd
eut Controller and offered TO execute IL or A,n ~, ,
that the lease had been actually executed by MT Nou
and since demanded payment Of the rent due .dei
the new lease nmouthS 20 lu', N, - 49, IN nav
with interest and that the Controller Stl refuses ~ ~ ~
them. The wnt then drcc- The Controller 10 eNccu ,'
lease and pay the rent, show cause 10 the Cpll
The return denies knowleGgcoi all lhc tics ' u ~ m ~ ~
proval Of the Corporation Council ndor,cd tnrreon @
denies on IN nn2 P ,"n haiufrafnr % have occnpcd under
the new lease. that the rent demanded N uuc Ihu
C"nroIcr further returns that he found on bis accession
10 office ON It's files OF injunction Ghis the iuuhc
ton obtained by Mr. Pullman as one 81 Inc '"uN'lHlh'
the obtaining of which was reported IN this paper at the
time II ocrirrcdj aud that. far rs hc knows,
the h still IN iorrc. lie IuflhcI i,luI,' ,,'
ON the sth Of January. 1861 the Mayor Sc, of New
York commenced action IN the supreme Court against
him alleging that the resolution under which these i'ac.
claimed had been passed IN pursuance ol 'ilu'
and fraudulent bargain and agreement made by the re-
ator and the then Mayor Aldermen, and Councmcn oi
the city Of New-lork and praying that the @ "a
aside and declared void ana the fspoheeht 'n'n
from oHccuns tlr iCane. ~ ~ ~ ~, rent he re-
turns that no voucher FOR the expenditure "i tl'r
moneys has been shown ar exhibited 10 lh' I'7poun't
examined by the Auditor. or ird in the '"ntoh'd
Office has the sum dcuaudcd hcrh tihuN'H w Hg
mcn Tor sich claim been recovered. lie further cs out
that the Corporation OF NcwNork have common sob
seal of the Corporation or to execute any lease OF con-
Mr. Allen then read a short affidavit of SIR wood deny.
ing that the allegations " fraud ana bribery made and
contained in the complaint ia the action brought by The
Mayor &c against himself and Mr Connolly are true,
and saying that he believes sad action Was brought with
ont the authority Of the Common Council that the
mons and complaint In said action were mot served
upon him until after the proceedings ~ THIS matter were
instituted and the alternative mdidGmV i,sucd aud
served herein, and that the pnpcr, IN c Pullman sut
have not been served ON him at all Nh Alcm dolrci
that II should be inserted ln the return lt Mt Fulm'
of office expired IN January last The opposite side
admitted the fact but declined 10 insert % u the return
Mr Allen then proceeded 70 argue that th@ P".mIoy
mdndamus must issue rs hcrc no denial of the ics
alleged in the original writ mere denial of knowledge
without dcnlal Oh th' I,'l was Io' suii i,rH an W. m
pOrtant facts not denied Hsdcnia o the rent being
due simply conclusion Of law. A to tho complaint
~ the SUIT alluded TO- honoiy WOMB HHey' thi lns
Corporation. the Mayor and Common Couucilm would
80 far stnltfy themselves rs to aver that they were
bribed but any rate the complaint not TO-
He had stl TO learn that allegation Of bribery and
rupuon inyalidated the action oi I'g'satNe body
Bribery and corruption msdcmcanog- for which the
Individuals might he punished but not To destroy Their
been retired by the people, who had first chosen him,
and his official life gone, aud this suit must all with
city aud The cnuTt bad mi povrr over him 80 '"'
Mr.. Vanderpocl, for the respondent claimed that the
alternative mandamus did not contain sufficient facts 10
sustain the mandamus 1t did not contain an allegation
that the claim audited. Whatever might have been
the law before the Legislature required every such
claim to be audited and this fatal omission n the
writ without regard 10 the return But, besides, the
Corporation disputed this claim, and had brought suit to
prevent it, being paid But counsel denied that the Cor
poration of NewYork any more than any other corpora
ton, could be compelled 10 pay debt by any other pro-
ccedihg than ordinary action An application to com
pei an insurance company TO pay debt by mandanns
for this Corporation
The claim had not been audited by Finance Depart
ment, which was essential The Corporation object 20 the
allowance Of this claim, and have instituted an action 10
prevent its enforcement The party has an adequate
remedy by action, and not entitled to mandamus
No Judgment in the has been recovered The Con
troer has power TO afiX the seal of the Corporation
native one it must follow it, if one part fails ali must fail
ARGUMENT or MR. WILLIAMS:
Mr.. j. T. Williams followed on behalf Of the corpora
ton, and said he wanted to notice one or two points
made in the return In the first place. the matter Of the
counsel ir Allen) very sulnmary. by saying that Pull
man no longer member of the Common Council,
and therefore the suit abaed II that So that
suit brought in the name OF any person holding an
office must abate by his passing out Of office, the right
Of bringing the action would amount 20 nothing Was il
20 be supposed that the Legislature rifng with
in that manner 1t was his office that gave the party
right 10 bring the action and could any say that the
right to bring II did not give the right to continue II TO
terInatoni When right Is given II not the whole Of
1t giyeDi Was II only part, and that the most inef
fectiye Parti such proposition would not bear eXalni
nation IL was simply necessary 10 cal the attention OF
his Honor 10 the fact that there was pending,
aud IL idle 10 answer 1t by saying That the complaint
not sworn 90. or that the Common Council
had not given authority, or that no one bad
sworn TO 10 information and belief. Was
that 10 demuTer The fact stood upon The
papers fact in tho ana IN order to get over H. the
Court must hold that when party attempts TO enter into
contract ana one iles bill IN equity To set II aside the
other may como in summary application, before he
gets into equity and by mandamus sweep away from him
the full benefit Of his action In equity II that be the doc
unc, let 10 be proclaimed In tlc books more pcrni-
cio5 dangerous doctrine could not be asserted Then
as to the argument Of counsel questioning the right Of
the corporation Counsel To bring the action without Tor
nal authority Of the Mayor, &c, why he there for
tbe very purpose OF directing them what actions TO bring