New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-11-02
SUPERIOR coURT-sPECIAL TERM

Before Justice FIthian.-Secret Meetings %
me Bord or Supervisors Ely, jr agt Rcbord b.
CONNOLLY OoroAer-In the complaint in this suit super
visor Ely forth that time ago the SupeYsOrsd
continued their uar stated meetings aud have since
only held SPECIAL meetings. That the nth OF septem-
Der last they hed OF these special meetings to which
they confirmed the tax levy without his presence. and
that the Controller under that continuation is directed
20 pay ont the Countys money Both as taxpayer ana
Supervisor he complains Of this and asks That the Con
troer be restrained from paying ont moneys undsr mo
which accom- pany the complaint state that &C q o'clock
OF the 18th Eys clerk went TO the office OF the eTAof
the Board Of Supervisors and INQUIRED whether mere
would be meeting and was Informed there would not MT
Elys anitor dd not close ms place OF business VII q
O'clock that day. and up that time no notice OF meet
ing was received there; but next morning nOuce NS
found pushed under the door MT; Ely aver ths
belief that 1t not intended he should near OF tno
meeting aud presents 10 as wrong 10 himself tnas nc
should be prevented from ne Discharge OF eay s ,h
the exercise OF right for which he receives pay Ion tns
county. The came up on motion TOT an iyuhoton
pending the SUIT On benaii OF the Pa.,n was co
tended that IL was common Jaw Iue tna1 ~ S
poratlon quasi corporation all members OF oOarus "
whom its trusts committed must have an oppor
tunity Of participating IN the act OF tie c"npsny "
notice either implied, OF stated meetings. OF express
81 board nulity That In fact actor Board
without notice Mr. Ely absolutely hu ana thatn
Court prevent any result on sncn se1n
Mr. OGorman for the Corporation, argued that MT BY
had rights the suit not as taxpayer Tor the act OF
1864 authorizing taxpayer 70 brng SUIT aealns. tne
taxing Boards had been declared unconstitutional IN that
respect; not supervisor for as supervisor hs
plant against his exclusion from me board 0, u
perysOrs which he had several remedies against tho
Board OF Supervisors He had IN ths capacity mstaAsh
~.
MED him his rights he might bring suit OF prOhotOn
or maudamus, possibly injunction, or even Peteonsi
suit for damages but lac could not aIihCh tne
Controller The only shane In which such an attach
could be presented Que through sue Attorney-Den
eral But, in fact a taxpayer there Was no WronB
done. the Board only confirmed tue act OF the Leglsi
tire AS a Supervisor no wrong was done Ihere was
ouOrum OF the Board and sufficient majority COVER
come Mr. Eys individual vote But the code was against
him An Injunction could Ouy be granted where the ACT
or its continuance would produce INJURY to the painn
This was fatal The plaintiff. rs taxpayer, was out OF
the question under the decisions As supervisor, he
WAS not injured by act when the Injunction WOulu
restrain defendants 10 argued that the PLAIN
t as taxpayer aud supervisor, had some rights; tna
TO carry into effect illegal act ot portion OF
Ihe SuperyisOrs would be 20 other illegal acts
That 70 say that act Of part OF the supervisory w
out any participation OF the rest express or implied ~
notice aud failure TO attend valid, was 10 open tho
door 10 the widest every fraud absurd IN theory
and most dangerous In practice ana that the only wO
10 check such practice crush sresults IN al cases
and stop It's agents every stage The Court reserved
its decision. Moses Ely for plaintiff; Mt oG0ruSn io'
defendant
James b. Brewster agt Henry BreiCSter ana
others-This case resumed, IN winch n. Ak.
Reayey appears for the plaintiff ana III, mei
and exJudge Porter for defendants. Ihe pIain
tiff claims To be the original brewster ahu az SUI
entitled 10 tho exclusive OF the tfaue-nlak, ne
brewster Wagon" He also claims 10 be prOteoeu roo
nbelous advertisements published III various papers,
rejecting upon his business aud character Tue papers
In the case are very yOunnOus and the briefs OF law
yers exhaust the law questions. The pialhu oo'abe1
an Injunction restraing the W1tng ana puoshuk VI al
lbeOus matter respecting him, qua restraining o no
PENDANTS from using above trademark Inc uoebuahs
claim that they made the reputation IOr the breNsr
wagon, aud that they are entitled to the name lno
mofion for A continuance OF the injunction was 10 hANo
been argued yesterday but 1t was laiu over un'ii "