New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-03-21
THE COURTS.
THE SEYENTH-AVE. PAVEMENT JOB.
ARGUMENT Fox THE PROPERTY OWNERS
O'GORMAN's REPLY.

O'GORMAN'S REPLY.
The suit Of Julian Crevier, jr., and others,
propertyowners Seventh-ave against The Mayor,
Aldermen etc. TO refrain the assessment Of their prop
erty, situated between Fourteenth and Fyninthsts,
came up yesterday before Judge Robinson in Special
OF the Court OF Common Pleas motion TO have
the temporary injunction continued. Charles T.. Miller
and Henry H. Anderson appeared for the PLAINTIFF and
Richard OGorman for the Corporation.
Mr. Miller after stating the facts Of the case, which
have already been reported, said that the answer ad
mied that defendants a corporations that the ord-
were passed alleged in the complaint; that
they invited proposals by notice published in each Of
the daily newspapers employed by the Corporation. not
stating how many times; that the contract entered
into previous to the 25th day OF April, 1870.
Counsel then stated his points ne follows:
statutes anhonlng a.,es'non, s'y "a afg'n o. le oamo1
act sr nm o. Sharp act johnson Hill, o. People sg vii
II s1S pisesr F5nc nth and Fnynnsts having been
PS1' a T. 6o BY he city Il r ri. point rests upoA
gnp and Al % upon Contract 81 saes contract Is ono T,e muller
toa hid power to make Ordinance ed November 1924 chp
s y ioss who a. bc preset ance have p an
pc for los on The l Of M ordinance The power Of le CG2rr
lurfs 'a - Barb, 90 lrc e're of the OHnaaee o. 1874
dve ali m aahony 20 ay aselnents Improvement,
Act of ' and sei does not authorize an assessment for repaginG
IL, true constitution q ll, to limit The right
the poey netsI' aoiaIng the worn to assessment for Tie
cot Of he m Or original ayemc1 s7ch "i1 es e9n,rueon Pad
scl rlo AID AEON asl for nearly forty years Tie justice
sonabea1, Of that Construct on manifest The dr'i pavement rem
specially beelc to the rroptoSres and TO TIE extent Of that
opened y, DE tires, Of the propeyovner that Of the
gusral public R;peay s this true Of &c ae9ass Of 't SY
Is onsaeoa Of rhe Ac: Of s3 Limiting ne PoSer ereb con
Judge ngmhan considering this question ss Suppose SPECIAL
@t Of m a o sg ~ e. oS sa 70 90 Cd ,1 ii
10 he dos. and pay che whole Pr any PaF Of TIE s
!. required ge' isgsu'ss NOR. pertinent e
rave been med te and whom oPnei
are tr T.oe apt Kerr q n T. 1873 Ore rendered uiss
.si the IsaeSt resulting ticu pa lie End sense pdy md
Tie Cos, 81 i P9, e, 10 H. e9pS. oG sf's II s
properly nor dor. The lay authorize sosh eas9 IN I.Ias e
Of property lie ole eIlen sheh y Of no besht % i
, & ,e 81 he Pavement In question vas freely public
s s ad D.,e 'P pa. 'i i.n p by e com uTon s
a9 1. Fe ,a T' IA s @ s9 ao : . pD Sae
ana .l' o1 5 ~ ,,rt dsTnet AZ. Civ Of Pha.
depas, American Law RIP. Vol No 7-J.ly lsl Ihs ease
OF tie CORPORATION tho rpsveeu of street svnae
i s-lsy T ' sv 'io sss c e ae as n
r pavement nsmeg 70 a The entire eene upon tge pe
hat tie rule opted by Assessors in m instance is Papaoe
III e ion 10 10 ar.e h contractor With
edyosnrrs They hd paid these materials and should have been
~ The omission 70 pabsh resolutions and reports s TIVE Con-
1sy The 7h section Of the Charter Of 1854 IS
resolutions and reports committees which shall recommend
any epeefe improvement involving te appropnato1 81 Rap
me Wy adjournment o. the Board in al the nesPa s en-,
notice has been guhied at least two days. ,.i
Nv ne Corporton onitns the word al" The 6 charges that
this Of DE charter va. not compiled WIZ se & & ., y,
rolatOn authorizing ia assessment ~ pn WA. ~ "o i
notice. meant the publication Of t resolutions ana rsP9r
Nod no.. ~ am ,g % ne manner Of the publication
e object OF e provision requiring publication give motto. to
r liable 10 ssss-neu, he ency the Common Council II
re - ~ f So- arv one Of te Corporation papers
night that such paper will contain the pu0leon required y
proceeding affecting be affect his property by assessment VI"
nas eore the Common Council This construct on OF the aute u
also 10y reoe to previous sies ea ing to TIE came $40
Lection TO thi rcir by "a oaa q I ' b,l he T,ds mar
d net ec2 row 'o9s or t ri s5 iep
e oars sel '"' s' P9yon KEW ~ inc R o snd cases
remedy the deaiC that arose from s OF
acte that aou. end reports shgni not be passed OF adopted
pub'on all he newspapers hi been made for at es'l two
Its eqgl n that single publication In all The newspapers
not compliance the ,ta,uie. Ia the Lgaiure iatendi 70
g s I ' Lave 's d %Hd sa no. be passed or aded until two
| da.s an suca h.s been published" . . -
v me omission to publish The ordinance as Tequire5 BY the th
section d the charter nyAe' the as s'mea Tor t' seqn re-
employed By Corporation etc This provision Of the
VI The act Of 10 rendered ordinance authorizing The a'esnen.
imperative void and the a,seseB IL therefore Illegal Laws
100 lip SO ~ 90 The aSt OF 100 took eject on the
% % IN e CT, Of New ort which payei and the
ps ,i " sy with any pest or srs pavement
ua. rionei Tor by majority the owners o. me PROPERTY or we
Ile Of .ne proposed npIo' ani nor uless e on m ,
q the Common Cogne ihe same slah be aP'el o 1n
special pavement which has not ben approved BY the Mayor or nc
S1 r' oy TO S' BE- asc and tor TsS no Soases
h,ea eri into and upon h.re declared to o. ,n' .n '
patent and special pavement ta the onnee was not approved by the
t @ % rot BEEN Commenced at the time Of the passage Of the
trro' paid By the properogne By assessment Ine a Irons
1rhg tbs ease clearly vtn the taloy o.sqns poholns Iu
tng Of patent or special pavement u ue WOfA wa
s sis AMI ~, cannot he Ia orit
The approval b, the Mayor aaendry resolution Of December
o. 9 approval Of the original ordnance Counsel cited
S does no smi, Of question The Mayor declared hi, .Ppova
& o9s b meeting sS SIMPLE details does not sSeei ,e
previous veto To iara II an onnauce connns several OBJ
qaen IN sme.nrnti to tue ordinance STRIKING o one 81 Tue
that the remaining objectionable provisions have received the Mayors
Tie purpose Object prohibit the LAYING Of
any pant or % SsyeeI sa} iD s afIq 4l S
except where the tou the property
c Tor the WORN si MOI been 1tc no and upon or the passage
the act which passed April 70 lSO The work was not commenced
VII No &. authorized be lid for the pavement ones
for stafford pavement provided the expense does not exceed s5 yard
vorE might he done Tor The resolutions Of Dccme o. 1869
gnrpo 70 amend the ogn o.nen bot provide in order cover
consider this charge for rock excavation. This extraordinary provision
ersIjsi 1J Of orr +6 We submit hat such charge srcs
oppressive suhcruge part of the Common
COnncil give grataity to the contractors a. the er.
peuse Of he taxpayer ard Is fisui upon the persons
assessed. had rock excavation been actually required the Com
Council should have provided FOR such separately aud their
abuse u their which the ought 20 de-
clare void cite the Of Brady The Mayor 20 " 52 49,
I uniting with patent pavement al competition erciuli In
m instance $1,000 was given away Il was ga1t or gfstny from
the and ony the Of the Council prevented the
| price from being fixed at , per yard Tor rock.
In this instance rgau paid the ~ work 20 be done In
The resolution but merely
refers 10 the fact that necessary AMI therefore the incr ei price is
| obe paid tor payemeuL
VIII The act on Of THO Common Council passing the resolution Of
for and