New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-07-11
CIVIL COURTS.

SUPREME COURT-CHAMBERs.- Before Mr.. Justice
LEONARD.
Tn, P,ope e rel John and others Commissioners Of the
Sinking Puni act The Metropolitan Board Of Brcse .
This is an action for "a mandamus To compei the
Board Of Excise TO pay over the surplus OF their receipts
from licenses, penalties, &c, after paying expenses sna
the Commissioners OF Charities and Corrections to tho
Sinking Fund city When the Board was originally
S me iS i the dTd Of the
mendation OF the Board its members thinking the pay
1 WAS transferred to the Sinking Fund by the
sixth sectonof the County Tax Levy The Excise board
still express their willingness and desire TO pay TINS
money In this way, but express uouDt OF tneir
power and desire the protection OF decree Oh inc C9 qe
man agt. Schultz decided about month ago IN lnae
the Mayor claimed that the tTeh Of Oh 5ns
omnbuses and dealers in various businesses was nnoon'
being subsequently taken to OF Appeals where
no decision has yet been rendered. In that case.
that II was a local act, and yet included more
than one subject some of them not being expressed
shall contain but one subject to be expressed in its title
IT, therefore, this act were local ana ana contain 1rs
than subject the whole and not merely one section
would be void The supreme Court did not resi- the De-
cson on this ground distinctly though OF the Judges
who delivered opinion strongly leaned to IT, the ace
is wholly unconstitutional even the 9th section the
money goes the Police Department-in other WORDS
the current expenses, aud not 10 the sinking fnu W
the city. -, ,,..o a. h ,ho po,rS
from April % 70 May o. was s6l2ss 2; Of which, under
the law they paid out sG0759 go leaving net amount 20
bp
Sis2ls For the payment over OF this und the pesens
Mr. Bliss on behalf Of the Excise Board, stated that
they looked themselves standing IN the position OF
Trustees and coming before the Court to ask directions ss
10 he disposal OF funds in their hands They were ready
10 nav IT, but with grave doubts as 20 the Nady OF the
law they were not willing to this large sum OF money
the course or year would pfoOaOiy De sWeeu
TO nearly million in one direction and incur the rsk OK
having Il reclaimed from them by other parties without
fhe authority aud protection OF the Court MI Bliss
then briefly stated the points on the aues
ton which mainly those used against him ia the ss
above alluded 10, and suhmutedhi papers
Mr. Van Brunt, behalf OF the sinking Fund repned.
claiming that the act was not local that II some OF us
nrjsjons were local the provisions OF general char
cer would stand and that the decision OF the supreme
Court in the other case only referred TO the 2th section
and not To the whole act. ,. ,,.o...o. -
served. -, NIL. o.. ,ot.aoo,
ITGIsI ATIVE CONFUsIoN-THE EIGHrHANE. ENTEN-
=. SION.
Robert Marshall agt. The Mayor &c.
AZ the last session the 23d of April. the Legs
otnre paSsed an amenda0ry act ARg the grade OF tho
Eighth.ave from Fifty nnth-st 10 One-hundred ana.
twenty secondt and directed the Street Commissioner
within sixty days 10 commence the work Considetanlo
onnosition was made 10 this BILL the planth says by tue
owners of 1900 lots. and on the next Gay tne
another act giving the Central Park Commissioners
authority to fix the grade OF TINS ana oner
missioner has and has issued proposals LOT
Eghthaye. from Fifty ninthst. TO one hundred anu
twenty econdst. The bids were opened as SatuIuy.
The plaintiff has brought a suit TO prevent the FORMING
OF any contracts by the street CommssioheI me, o
Central Park Commissioners settle the grade tey ss-
ing fear that unless this be done they MI DC " o
eXnense OF double grading. An order 10 snow cause
WHY an Injunction should not be granted Win tempo'
rary Injunction was granted by Slr Justice Pecknan
urnabe to-day but the argument OF the case was Ad''
JONI NIr DonoIoss Campbell and Whibech & Wandeli for
nlantif: Mr. O'GOrman for defendant