New-York tribune., 1868-05-07
THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN, &c, Agt FERNANDO

WOOD.
This action, to set aside the fraudulent re-
solve Of the Common Council giving the ex.Mayor
sisoOOO for what II wanted by the City, could not be
worth over $4,000 but whch-only small part Of it
being wanted for any purpOseis worth much less
found at the head Of the calendar, between 1900
and 5000 advance Of its order at the opening Of the
Circuit Court Monday morning, before his Honor
Judge Cardozo The is equity ease-to be heard
before single Judge The Corporation Counsel thought
It was question Of fact whether the resolve in
question had passed by fraudhat the should
be sent to q jury upon that issue, and so made
motion at Chambers before Judge Cardozo, for that
purpose The Court, however in Its discretion, re-
fused allow such issue to be submitted TO jury
but ordered the be set down for trial before him
self at Circuit the first Monday Of May, upon the
ISSUE nrst whether Wood did. about theii0th day
OF December 1865 agree with the then Mayor, In sub
stance effect. that in the Boards of Aldermen
and COuncimen, by vote Of majority Of each Of said
Boards should pass and adopt and said Mayor should
sign approving the the resolve In question: that
Wood should and would pay to be paid TO the
said Mayor and TO such OF the Aldermen and Councmen
as should vote for said resolve TO be distributed among
Them the sum Of $2l,OOO any other Secondly,
was said resolve passed by the said Boards
Of Aldermen and Councilmen, and approved by
the Mayor under in pursuance OF such agreement
As the Corporation Counsel proposed TO more
than maintain his complaint which charges that this
fraudulent agreement was made as well with divers per-
tons then being members Of the Common Council with
the Mayor and this corrupt agreement was only one
OF divers other corrupt and fraudulent agreements set
forth in the complaint, and this complaint is main
tanned by proof any OF the many frauds charged he
evidently thought the issue sent TO jury for trial had
been selected with care 10 the exclusion OF all the
Others any which would have been Just effective
as and much easily proved than the one selected
He took appeal from the order the General Term,
pllad fo fhe af hpfo IudOa
Sutherland on notice the attorney for Mr. Wood for
stay Of proceedings until the appeal could be heard and
determined
The motion for the stay vigorously opposed the
part of Wood ground that the order appealed from
not In fact appeaable but the Court after debera
tion was OF different opinion and Monday morning
an order was entered staying all proceedings and served
on the attorney OF Wood. When the called be-
fore his honor Judge Cardozo the counsel for Mr. Wood
stated that he had been served with order staying pro-
ceedings but-st persistng that the order settling the
issues discretionary and therefore not appealabe
intimated that the Court sitting this month at Chambers
would at yacate IL notice. So the Judge directed
the TO its place the calendar until the fol
lowing morning
ThereupOn an order was without any affidavit what
ever obtained of Judge Barnard then sitting at Cham
bers to show cause the following morning why the order
staying proceedings should not be vacated On Tuesday
morning the counsel appeared before Judge Barnard
Chambers Mr. shea, for Wood, moved TO vacate Judge
sutherland's order the ground that the order
appealed from was discretionary, and not in
fact, appealabe, The Judge at once replied
that the order not appeaable, and ntimated that
the stay must be vacated Mr.. Williams. for the city.
objected 10 the hearing of the notion the ground that
the statute forbade the Court 20 hear motion upon
notice OF less than eight days, unless the Court should
upon affidavit showing the necessity OF it, prescribe
by rule TO show cause. shorter time; and as IN this
case there was such affidavit there was In enect
statutory prohibition against the hearing OF the notion
He also insisted that ne question Of stay had been
brought before the Court at ts regular sitting ut
Chambers, on notice and affidavit, and as 1t had
been heard on It's merits before that Court,
upon the argument of counsel for the respective parties
and the opposition TO granting the motion had been
placed upon the ground that the order not appeal
able and the Court upon due deberaon had held that
it cas appeaabo. and that there ought TO be stay TIL
the determination Of that anuea he thought the only re-