The New York herald., 1872-05-24

Disa ppearance or the sOi-Dfsant Lord
Gordon.
Before Judge Leonard.
The Chambers of the Supreme Court were yesterday
morning crowded to excess, 1t being generally an
ticIpated that Gordon Gordon, against whom an at.
tachmen wasissued On the previous day would sur
render for examination. But the assemblage was
doomed to disappointment for Gordon failed to
appear, and his whereabouts Is a mystery 30 the
Sherif's officers who have already given chase but in
vain. There was host OF counsel in attendance,
and when the case was called Mr.. Strahan asked
the Court to allow IL to stand till another
day, as counsel on both sides had consented to
pOstponement.
Judge Leonard said he had already made engage
ments for tomorrow morning, which must take
Mr.. Field said he consented to the postponement
OF the motion to strike out the complaint. He had
received the Sheriffs return upon the attachment,
'Not found, - and he asked for the issue Of an
alias attachment, returnable forthwith.
The Court granted the adjournment.
Anthony j. Blccckcr's Bill for Appraisc-
mcnt OF City Property.
The People ex rel. Anthony j. Bleecker vs. Comp
troller Green.-It win be remembered that in May,
1871, the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund en-
ployed Anthony j. Beecker, Adrian H. Muller and
Cortlandt Palmer to make appraisal of property In
New York belonging to the city. The parties thus
employed did the work, and the Commissioners
passed a resolution awarding them $4,000 each for
their services, but subsequently rescnded the reso-
Withdrawn their claim, but Mr.. Bleecker, in the
emphatic language OF Senator Sumner, "sticks."
Comptroller Green, however, has refused to pay
him his $4,000, and expresses willingness to pay
only $4,000. The matter came up yesterday morning
ON an application for a mandamus to compel the
Board Of Audit and AppOrtionment to pay the
claim.
Mr.. William Watson, on behalf OF Mr.. Bleecker,
claimed that the passage of the resolution by the
Commissioners of the Sinking Fund to pay Mr..
Blocker was complete contract, being passed
after the work done and that the resembling
resolution was nulty. The money, he cOntended
further, had been justly earned. Mr.. Bleecker was
expert IN the matter of real estate, and this ap
prasa was ordered to put on sound foundation
the financial credit OF the city.
Mr.. Dean, on behalf of the city, cOntended that
the present case did not come within the scope Of
the legislative act as to the payment OF the
salaries of employees of the city and for supplies and
material furnished for the city.
Mr.. Strahan stated that there was bill awaiting
the signature of the Governor which would cover
MIR. Beeckers claim.
Mr.. Dean, resuming his argument insisted that
the original employment was for such a sum as the
Comptroller might fix, which was $4,000 He also
urged that the Commissioners had no right to make
templated and therefore that they had no right to
order an appraisal, and that they had money
applicable to the purpose. His concluding point
was that If a mandamus was granted IL should sim
ply be to audit the bill and settle upon the amount
to be paid.
Mr.. Watson replied to these various points serid-
tim, contending that none of them were tenable,
after which the Court took the papers, reserving its
decision,