New-York tribune., 1871-11-16
THE COURTS.

THE CORNELL COURT HOUSE SUIT.
PANHANY's REFUSAL TO PAT AN HONEST BILL
WHAT CAN THE CONTROLLER BE cONrELl-EO
TO DOT
The Cornell suit against the Commissioners
Of the new County Court House and Controller Connoy
TO recover balance Of ta725 ts due on bill for iron
work put into the Courthouse came up again Tor
argument before the General Term OF the supreme
Court yesterday, Judges Ingraham, Barnard, ana
CardoEo presiding. The appeal 10 from an order OF
Justice Sutherland made Aug. ST. 1871, directing the
issue Of q peremptOrY writ OF mandamus commanding
the Commissioners deliver to the reAtOr reputation
on the Controller instrucng that ocef 10 pay the re-
IatOr the sum claimed with interest from Dec g. 1882
The Commissioners appeal from TINS Oruer IN 8eherS,
and the reatOr also appeals from It, because II does not
require the Issue Of writ Of nandaInns drecty 70 the
Controller instructng him to pay the relators claim
After full review OF the matter and citation OF the law
invoyed plainti6's counsel z. K Robinson and A. T.
Lawrence, summed up their clients ease as fOOws:
Tue reator has legal contract with the County Of
SsS honestly and fairly performed his work under the
contract at the prices agreed upon on the lth Royem
AeF 1858, when 1t was executed He earned at these
prices 500 49, and his bill for that amount duly
audtted b. the supervisOrs examined and allowed by
5 sS y 7f fs4 fTTd pSd sSa s sssef
count Of the same Since Dec 1882 the reator hat not
IT. payment has repeatedly promised by the Con
rOller During 1862 1870 and 1871, the sum OF $4,000
has been raised for the erection and building Of the
Court House The restor has right Of action against
the county 0p his contract and b remediess unless he
obtains relief on these motions.
The Corporation Counsel replied to the argun'nts OF
Mr.. that the Of funds by tie Con
troer complete and sufficient. On the appeal be
said that even the appropriation Of 100000 remained
the Treasury subject TO the warrant OF the Controller
still the relator would not be entitled 10 payment ont OF
that fund The clause in the Of 1870 making the a
preparation Of 100000 expressly provides the money
raised shall be paid by the Controller, on vouchers
approved by the Commissioners herein authorized and
the motion @ " papers that the reators claim or auy
voucher theFef9T has ever been "ppPEytSG Hy the
fore, has wholly failed to show any legal right
The Sppfopriaons Of 1870 and ISL are neither Oh them
applicable TO the payment Of the relatOrs claim The
1870 made special provision for the payment OF all liza
bities against the county including that to reato 1t
that the subsequent appropriations made by the Leg
StuT BY the acts OF O ana 1871 or I0r tns I@ CON- an
pheable 90 the payment OF the relators claim
he owes to Court House CommssiOners, to the
reaOr The statute requires the CONTROLLER to pay 10 e
requstOn Of the Commissioners, and In such sums as
they deem necessary Thus 1t appears that the cor,
Commissioners, and IN no sense due to the relstO
the Commssoners He objected to the order directing
the Controller TO pay the reatOr the amount OF hs h
on grounds that the act OF 1870 makes the Controller
of the City of Ncw-YOrk the dsbursng officer whereas,
by the act OF 1871 the Controller Is to pay over 10 the
credit of the COMMISSIONERS such SUN or sums as they
may from time to time deem necessary But nowhere IN
either act Is there authority permitting the Con
trOler 90 pay any bill without the consent OF the Com
mssiOners Under the act OF 1870, he could not pay
cept on vouchers approved by the Commissioners and
under the act Of 1871 the actual payment of all bills II to
be made by the Commissioners Themselves Hence, the
direction In the order commanding the Controller to pay
the relatOr out OF moneys which by law the Controller
has power to touch Is of itself sufficiently erroneous
70 warrant its reversal
II did not matter the bill had been audited by the
supervisors The Commissioners not the
cessors in office Of the Board Of Supervisors but nde
pendent creation and under the Of 1870 money could
only paid vouchers approved by them under the
act Of 1871 and such TO be paid TO them they
may deem necessary TO complete y the building
In reply the relaOr claimed that 1t could not have
been the Intention of the Legislature not to provide for
the payment of debts contracted about the saline subject
The acts of 1858 and 1869 equally for the "c0ne
ton" Of the Court House. The Controller and Com
mssioners had practically interpreted the law allow
ing pay out Of these appropriations past hab
ties and there decisions OF the courts to the
effect Tho provision of the interim Board, alluded O by
the other side did apply tO the liabilities to be paid
OF special appropriations. No further examination
Of the bill required the statute OF 1871 requiring
vouchers of the Commissioners was only prOspectlNe
the Commissioners were the successors OF the Board oi
upe rysOrs in this particular work, and their audit was
binding on the commissioners As to the other olJtc-
tion OF the Controller, that 1t premature, II was
technical and no harm could arise to him from that De
csiOn reserved.