The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-05

Attorney General OF the State had NO authority ~
bring suit in the name OF the people OF the state
as they had no manner of interest In the at an
| In this case town was about to Issue the bonds
wr0ngfully and the Attorney General sought to In
terfere to restrain the ISSUE Now, after this de-.
| cision,
WHY SHOULD THIS SUIT BE BRoU6HT7
Besides, are not the people OF the city OF New
he an as we aye
| were enough good men to attend to this matter
properly. Counsel then asked whether the county
sue, and said the Revised Statutes settled that
question. They provide that each county may sue
ana be sued. But counsel says there cannot be two
corporations on the territory. This is not so.
we have striking Illustration OF the fact that
two corpol atols ra and do occupy the same teri
IN every STATE n the Union. Counsel cited author
tiles to sustain this position. II has been said that
house in est & County property and the land
upon which Y stands had to be bought from the
city before It , could proceed with the building.
fact.) Suppose the courthouse burned to-day
who would bring suit for the insurancef Would
the Revised Statutes say county can
various acts to show that Legislature recognized
In the city and county two distinct corporate or
ing Charles O'Conor for his services az counsel IN
The Court here took a recess till halfpast three
O'Clock 7. NJ.
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
On the rcassembling Of the Court, Mr.. D. d. Field
boom repeated his question what win become ol
He regarded this as very important question in the
matter, and what he wanted to get at was, how!
money Collected either by the State or BY the su5
pervisors, and this could only be determined BY
showing what would become Of the money after IL
Mr.. Field responded that, as matter Of coursea
II would go into into the county treasury far the
benefit OF the county Just the same any other Of
show that the county oicers did '1 everything
mental purposes. and then proceeded to show
that this money, II recovered could used for req
decming the bonds already issued to raise the
money which has been wrongfully appropriated
He maintained that the only difference between the
county of New York and the other counties OF the
State was that, the former was required annually
to come to the Legislature for authority to levy a
tax and this was the source OF all our troubles He
ter it was brought here, all the known means Of
corruption were made use OF to increase that levy,
ton ton '" It ~ was as" 'p great hardsnip-it was
woise--it was cruel injustice ON the part or the
would leave that county to do as other counties arc
allowed to do, and give II the opportunity to hold
would be much better In that county. Counsel
read an act OF 1854 in which the Supervisors OF tho
county OF New York were made the trustees Of the
property and funds OF the county, and asked II there
ample provision made here for the custody Of
the money. Counsel closed by saying that the people
OF New York wanted the privilege OF prosecuting
these suits themselves. They demand this oppor-l
tunity as right, and they wild prosecute them and
recover, III IL 10 possible to recover and distributor
| the money In proper manner.
THE CASE or THOMAS O. FIELDS.
The case Of Thomas Q. Fields, the Mayor, &C, was
| called. The complaint was that Fields, as q men,
Der OF the Assembly, promoted the passage OF O
bill providing for payment Of fraudulent claims to-
age as fees. John II. Reynolds appeared for
the defendant. sustaining his demurrer. Coun-
on which it was based and said he could not See
how a man could be sued for money appropriated
S q s S osss @ t.
taned the demurrer to the right q the Attorney
pared BY George TIcknor Curtis on behalf of'the
mainly demurrer to making the city party to
Wheeler H. Peckham then addressed the Court
on behalf OF the prosecution, detailing oil the cir
cumstances OF the case.
Court then adjourned until halfpasr ten A. M to-
morrow. Mr.. 0'Conor is then to speak to the ques-
ton Us to the right OF the State 10 bring the suit
| CURTIS ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
The following Is the paper which Mr.. Curtis read
to the Court on behalf OF the City Corporatlon:-
CITY HS 4Ss h " @ ss
g as s ss IN si 81 ai a.
1s e sd nSs ne he sayo ss
81 the Ely New y!
'Hss n
& fo%s u s
AND It's % natgGrs scqnIesced and SIN de-
S
Fields In the rasd aioesa and IN projecting hm rom
SS 81 s
cd by the complaint against the city, and It Is not per
- CORPORATION coussRL,s pxxuRRrR 1
gorsion counsel On Seh The eisy hs asIenaan
M
capacity to sue, second that several causes Of action
sss s s third ns the
action Il o11 against al these defendants {. mt
iSS
ton does not desire tissts n this scon The Se%ar
= asis County, 's
time avail themselves Of the 0pportupy Afforded oy
1I% co ny:
pubic isSd:
wish 70 Be- heard upon tataueson y shall b argued
Ss%Srrs on s Se sy 1' ns
siS ocers only I" re@nS that
:.s sss:s Con-
GSrssi IN. q me people
@ %1 See cssS s and %
N sen ns @ n s thu IL a ess
ws sd1sea h % s the 81 @
EIGMAED 3G2kMAS G9gassl to the Corporation
JOHN K PORTER, associate Counsel