Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-03-30
LOCAL NEWS.
The Paving Contracts

The Board Of Public Works act. Kdyor E5a,r, >, NJ
To-day, the case of Cooke, Shepherd. Brown
Magruder and Mullett, ss the Board OF Publ 4.
Works, against Mayor Emery, Gleason, Neitze.
Eslin and others, contractors-bin for ipiunc-
tion TO restrain d. PENDANTS from executina
work under contracts for paving, &c., in the
several wards, noticed in TIE STAR of Sstur-
day)-was taken up in the Equity Court Judge
by Judge G.. p. Fisher and Mr.. w. A Cook
The Corporation Attorney, Col. Totten, an
peared Tor Mayor Emery, and Messrs. w ID
Dsyidge and A. g. Riddle for the con tractors
Inc defendait Is hled plea to the Jurisdiction
that the plaintiffs are not public officers. and
have no jurisdiction or control over the worE
which has been contracted. Also, demurrer
10 the bill, which raises the question that the
allegations IN the bill are insufficient and also
An answer that the contra tors have contractsS
Ter the work In good faith, &c.
MIR. Cook moved to amend the bill 70 rand
Mayor, Board or Aldermen and Common
Mr: Cook read the bill, and was followed Inv
Mr.. TOtteD, who read
THR ANSWER OF MAYOR EMERY.
IN which he admits that II plaintiffs constitute
the Board OF Public Works they have no con-
trol over the streets, avenues, alleys, Sc, un-
I'll June 1st 1s1 that according 10 his prescribed
duties he advertised for proposals for the work
and they were opened and contr acts execntad
except in case of Lewis; and submits that the
ACT Tor the government OF the District of Colnu,
bia provides that the nhabitants NAV sue and
be sued under the name OF the District of a..
lumbia, and therefore the suit should be in tia,
name. " a'
MI Riddle read
THE DEMURRER OF NRITZR
that plaintiffs have no cause for cominp into
court; that they are not a BODY corporatee that
they are not public officers; that they diseIose
no title or interest; that there is misioinder of
parties, plaintifs and defendants; that the bill
Is multlfarious and defective.
Mr. Riddle also read the answer of other
parties, and MIR. Dayidge the answer OF StewaTt
MI Riddle commenced the argument saving
that be did not see the parties had any
STATUS IN THE COURT.
~ was not charged that the Mayor had violated
law or that the contractors had uHed fraudulent
means TO obtain these contracts. The plaintiffs
90 not disclose that they are taxpayers or thar
they will sp fer, but the idea is that
TIE MAYOR ACTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY
Admitting there Is no mayor. that he has actad
outside Of Law, what rights have the plaintiffs
IN this court? The plaintiffs are not body
corporate. They state that they have been
appointed that they have been sworn in
MT Riddle proceeded 70 argue that plaintiffs' A.
officers at all. are officers Of the District af
Columbia, and II they sued they should she Il,
the name of the District of Columbia. tbev not
being o. body corporate. This board has No.
been born yot, and the very law from whieh
they spring Goes rot warrant the assn mntion y,
power The bill charges that the proper snh.
gecfs OF these contracts have been seized mon
hut they do not dir close that they are in nosses
sion OF the streets, &c. lie claimed that thu