The New York herald., 1871-01-04
T HE COUR T S.
The Ramsey and Erie Suit Again Up in the su-
preme Court-Important to Taxpayers
Delicate Quibbe on the Sub
ject Of Assessment.
SUPREME COUaT-cEaFRAL TERM.
That lutcrminable Ramsey and Erie Railway
Smit Again.

Tint lnterminable Ramsey and Erie Railway
Smit Again.
Before Judges Ingraham, Cardozo ana Barnard.
Joseph N. Rarasey us. The Efte RatLray CAM
pany et aL-This is an appeal from an order OF the
Special Term vacatlng and setting aside default
taken against plaintiff at the October Special Term.
The successive stages OF the suit from
its commencement on November 23 1869,
have been so fully given IN the HERALD
that any detailed reiteration OF the facts ia
wholly unnecessary. The present appeal grows
out oi the fact that when the case was called for
trial before Judge Barnard, on the 10Th OF last
OcI0ber. for winch time 1t was peremptorily set
down, and the Judge having refused motion TO
pOStpose IT, the plaintiIf declined 10 proceed with
the trial before THE Judge then holding the court
the alleged ground tnat he was prelndced; upon
which, on motion OF defendants counsel, the COM
plant was dismissed WIN costs and , an extra extra
the entry OF judgment, such extra allow
ance to be fixed on the second Monday Of
November ana the judgment To be thereafter en-
tered, but wrn leave 10 the planir to then come in
and try the cause. AS the defendants were proceed
ing 10 enter an order accordingly and to gave notice
about the liking OF the extra allowance. the plantt1
prevented both by notice OF the present motion, ac-
companed by an order staying all proceedings.
Mr.. David dudley Field opened the argument
He Insisted that the order dlsmissIng The COM
plant not having been entered the motion was
premature pre- ds:o ha a,sNss was ,o
the condition that the plaintiff dd not elect TO try
the case; that 1t was Irregular the matter being st
from single Judge to single Judge npon the same
facts. He elaborated these points, and then branch
Ing OF Into the ramncattons or the subject, insisted
that Ramsey and his counsel were totally Indifferent
alike 10 the requirements Of the law and the courts
that they treated with contempt the injunction sued
against them, and last and not least, wished to elect
Their own Judges.
Mr. pecEhan entered upon his rejoInder but had
not completed lC when the court adjourned. He
urged that the motion was perfectly proper one;
tnat the right to the postpone ent OF the trial asked
was an absolute lega right not resting in discreet on
default was properly granted without imposing any
terms on paiatir lie had only got fairly under way
| when the time for adjournment arrived.
THIS morning Mr.. PecKnam Will finish his argll.
ment, anu then Mr.. Field Will make the closing
| speech
Nice Point oil Interest to Taxpayers.
| The People er rel. Be,ljalnnl Y. Blbbtu us. the
| Commissioners OF TaIes and Assessments or the
city Or Ne,c YorETne relator had S345, sos assets
besides S25O0oo United States bonds ana his debts
were $3.50, 900. The Tax Commissioners taxed him
for $780, 900, and he appealed by certiOrarl to the
General Term. The Tax Commissioners claimed
that they had a right to set or $3.50 900 against
liabilities and only balance against taxable assets.
| lie claimed that they were bound to set OF his
1 liabilities against taxable assets alone, leaving him
nothing to pay taxes on. and that this indi-
! rect effort TO compel him TO pay tax on $3.50 900
United States bonds nOE taxable The Court, alter
hearing lengthy arguments oi the opposing counsel
decided In his favor
Delicate Quibble ON the Subject OF ASSESS
ment.
IN the Matter or the Petition or George W. Doug
lass to Fdcate on Assessment FOR Regulating and
Grading StJty.rou,th street. Bet,oeen 1hiyd and Fun
are.s,tes.-Ths is appeal from order OF assess
ment in 1863, on the ground that the law then re
quired any resolution imposing an assessment OF
tax on tile people to be advertised In all the cor
poratlon papers two DAYS before the passage In tha
| branch OF the Common Council In which the same
was offered, and again advertised before the passage
by the other Board. 1t was cOntended that In this
case the resolution In question was published only
| In the HERALD and T1O,t,le and In none OtneI
| OF the corporation papers. The court below held
that this provision OF the statute merely direc
tory and that its nOn-perfOrmance dId not vItate
the announcement The Court affirmed the judg-
ment below.