New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-11-30

H.. dollar, and tw,ptynn cents 8147lo 2e The pns
,Iecutiop therefor JANIS NJ. sWBkkY, ClerL
sHeye il a complaint with not single item date by
which S46l7 SO Is sought 20 be recovered from your eli
ents The only answer you put III Is general statement
Section i5S oi the Code requires that when any plead
ing is verified every subsequent pleading except denur-
The Above complaint was verified and yet you neglected
70 verify yOur If advantage taken of this
bv your opponents IL affords you excuse for your pal
pale neglect does IL appear in the record that no
The supreme Court OF this District at General Term,
has decided that the restrictive and prohibory sections
of the Law OF 1866 above quoted are constitutional as
well ms regards claims incurred before as aier the pass
There can be 10 doubt Of the consutonalty Of tho
law regards the claims that accrued subsequent TO It's
ference between the claims that accrued before and those
that accrued subsequent 70 the Law OF 1866 When you
saw that the General Term OF the Supreme Court Upheld
the law regards both classes OF claims you should
have TO il that the city received the fu benefit OF
that decision at least regards claims that accrued sub
sequent 10 the passage OF the law.
lawyer anxious that his CLIENT should receive the ben
eft Of the law would certainly have had 1t appear IN the
complaint by moving have made definite in the
or in the bill OF particulars TO go on record what
portion OF the amount sought TO be recovered accrued
after the passage OF the law There is nothing IN the
record Of this to chow when the work done and
II does not appear that the Court was to what
portion Of performed subsequent TO the passage OF
the Law Of 1866 and the Corporation Counsel awaited
himself only Of the general defense OF no appropIa,
the fact that the work sued for subsequent
to the passage OF the law the Court had tho right to pre-
q
for Court upon proper presenaonOf the facts anu
the law would have declared the above sections OF the
Law Of 1866 unconstitutional as regards work done supe
Quent to its passage.
For you shift the responsibility to the shoulders OF
the Judges you must first show that you discharged your
duty the City OF NewYOrk by laying the facts before
the Court with the Same zeal and honesty that every
good lawyer evnces in the conduct OF the suits OF MS Gil
cnts. . ~.
In this connection the Association would remark that
II your own time occupied 10 preclude your per
sOnal attendance in the matter these advertising claims
enuenty of such character as AYE delnanued
have had scrupGl employing extra counsel 10 INC
amount Of S6i6n @includng the extra counsel IN me
Bank cases. I'm almost every other matter even OF the
most trivial that came into your Office ana the
Association cannot think that your neglect 70 employ
such counsel in advertising claims arose ron desire
TO husband the public money. Perhaps however YOU
might have employed Mr.. Tru, whom you employed IN
other matters the extent OF 975, exclusive OF his lee
Of 5000 the Bank cases, TO have defended the Cy
against The Transcript quits had It not been Tor ne c'
although Association cannot that tho result would
have been any worse for the City If Mr. Ir had argued
the case for both sides.
The least that you could have done, however # you
had wished to protect the city would have been TO see
caly low way of bill OF particulars otherwise what
the Judgment was for whereas. now, the judgment roll
claim for the same work and II further Judgment
shall be recovered for this same cause OF Ocuon u
will not be because you have done anything 10 prevent
As regards your not demanding bill of particulars,
you attempt to excuse yourself by alleging that the
desired information had been furnished TO- you by the
Controller But why lP THIS information " tne rSCSIu
OF the Ca6et Ann Uh0t mere 70 6tOc uu 70
the Court hat aliowed the judgpetf II this information
beforethe Courts why Is 1t not on recordt In what
shape IL get before the Court IL Is not In the com
plant in the answer, nor u mentioned or referred
to in the order allowing the judgments and why when
the order entered tine judgment roll made ny ala
you have filed among the other paperst ana you
had dppeqisd from this judgment whdt IS there on record 70
sot 10 the appellate Court that he C0rk cds done s't6sc-
Quent 10 the passage Of he lar Of 1896 The Association
would also call your attention to the judgment IN ne
case Of Jones agt The Mayor recorded against the City
April TO- 1851 for s220 49, as another Instance OF inc
way in which you did all you could to protect the inter
ests Of the people who elected you.
Mr.. Jones the city for work done " In 1865 and
1865 IL appears that In this you actually demanded
a bill Of particulars In order that.Our people NAV see
how their money is FILTERED away, the bill OF particulars
furnished although II negects 70 give the date when
these $4,000 copies Of the "Obseques" Were deiirered Il
given entire
SUPREME CoUET-EdEai Jones agt The Mayor GcPsnfs b Of
particulars