The New York herald., 1872-07-31
TwEED's WATER METERS.

Judge Barrett's Opinion U pom the Com
tract-A Good Scheme nv Private Par
ties, but Bad for tho Publs>r-Denfal Of
the Application for . Mano.rmus tn
Compel Payment for the MeterS-The
Case Disposed OF 1T Short Notice.
Some time ago Jose r. Novarro applied to Judge
Barrett, then holding Chambers. OF the Supreme
Court, for q mandamus to compel Mr.. Van Mort,
Commissioner OF Public Works, to issue his requis
ton upon the Comptroller requiring him to pay
$2S3,600, with interest from September II, 1871,
being the amount claimed to be due him by the city
fiF water meters delivered pursuant to a contract
entered into with the late Commissioner OF Public
Works. decision was rendered to-day by Judge
Barrett refusing the mandamus. accompanied by
lengthy opinion. The first objection to the manda-
mus was, that the contract was Illegal, and the
second that the act providing for the expense was
improper Both OF these objections Judge Barrett
overrules, but considers the third one.-that the
contract was In violation OF the charter--fntal to
the application. We give
rHR OPINION
in full on this pOnt:-
II Is claimed that the contract was violation of
section l04 OF the charter, which substantially pro-
Woes that contracts made by heads of departments
comp,io1cs S t nS on sealed proposals made In
relator comedies that no bids proposals were In
yted that the terms of the contract were not set
tieu oy the corporation Counsel, and thas he gave
no security Tor It's faithful performance. He claims
that these provisions OF the charter have no appl
cation TO patented article like his and that ut all
events, Che acts above referred to vest an absolute
discretion in the Commissioner OF Public Works.
ane C0urs ls or opinion that the discretion thus
visions OF the charter but that It was limited to the
introduction Of the system and the designation OF
the pattern OF the water meter. There is nothing
IN the act directly repeating or suspending pro hdc
tice t section lo4 OF the charter Repeal BY fmplca
uon @ u not favored, and here there Is much to
De considered that even upon the strictest inter-
presaton great power was conferred on the Com
placed In every store, workshop, hotel, manufac.
tory, stable and place Of business in the city and
tne entirc expense thereof charged as u lien upon
the property. 1t ia not fair to conclude that the
Legislature intended to impose upon the owners
choose to pay for the article thus thrust upon them
IL s surely the more reasonable construction that
the property owners upon whom this expense WAS
lection was offered to them by the existing
provisions OF law and by those wholesome
checks on extravagant expenditure which it was
deemed wise TO engraft on our charter. These con-
siderations are not affected by the fact that this
was patented article. The relator enjoyed no
Competition was possible for his was chosen from
among forty-eight different Styles The case is
learned counsel for the relator-vlz., Harlem Gas.
light Company VS.. the Mayor, 80 New York. 800, and
Astor vs. Mayor reported IN the Transcript, July g.
1862 Nor would the application OF section 1O4 OF
the charter work the disastrous results cOntended
for-namey, olobliging the Commissioner to use
inferior in quality and utility. The act expressly
provides for such q contingency, for while the
Commissioner cannot arbitrarily choose o particu-
lar article, he can designate the general pattern
which alone he will approve OF, that is, the form,
style, dimensions, materials to be used, and the
authorized to reject any meter which, to quote tho
language OF the act, Is not Suitable for the pur-
pose" This last objection Is, therefore, well taken,
ana the application Tor D mAndamu6 must be
denied.