The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-13
5RS0KLYy COURTS.
SUPREME COvaT-SPscAL TEAM

A Costly Job-The Repaving of Atlantic Ave.
nse-COntested Assessnents-Partial Victory
Of the Properly Owners-The Assessments
Reconsideration of Judge Pratt.
Before Judge Pratt.
In the matter OF the petition OF william A. Colt
to vacate assessment for repaving Atlantic ave-
nue. from Henry street to Fiatbush avenue, Judge
Pratt yesterday decided that tie assessment must
be reduced. THIS Is a partial victory for the prop
erty owners Who have appealed to the courts to
vacate the assessments on the ground That they are
exorbitanr and Illegal Mr.. Colts is a test case
Below Will be found
JUDGE PRATrs DECISION.
The nrst point urged DY the petitioner to vacate
the assessments herein s, that the act OF $780, by
which the Board Of Water and Sewage Commls.
streets Is unconstitutional ana void This point
was argued before Judge Gilbert IN recent case
and afterwards affirmed by the General Term in
this district.
10 the second point that the Common Council
had determined to initiate proceedings TO repave
Atlantic STREET with Belgian pavcmenG prior to the
act under consideration 1t Is sufficient 10 say tlat
oil the powers possessed by the Common Council In
the PREMISES together with Increased powers, were
transferred to and vested in the Wafer Board.
fore the Act Of 1880 was passed TO have either re-
voSed or abandoned us proceedings. This power
body possessed and could exercise The same discrc-
ton. The doctrine OF res al judtcto, applied to
judicial tribunals mas no bearing upon tnis proceed
| The third and fourth points have been decided in
the same case and same manner as the irst but I
may add as to The fourth point 90 find it sus.
tained as matter Of fact by the evidence In this
The filth point IS not sustained by the evidence;
besides, II there was any departure by the Water
Board from the method pointed out by the act, 1t
Is not shown to have been Injurious TO the petitioner
The sixth point Is answered by deducting from
the entire assessment the amount included therein
paid Tor regarding, which should be done.
Inc seventh point IS not susained by the proofs,
the variations between the bid and the contract
were beneficial rather Than injurious to the peti.
toner.
The eighth point has been repeatedly decided by
the General Term OF his Court adversely to the
The ninth point IL answered Dy section eight Of
the power to determine which proposal was the
most beneficial to the public
adversely 10 the petitioners claim In both the Full
ton avenue and Main street cases by the last Gene
| raj Term OF CliS Court.
The items claimed as irregular in the twelfth
point are all included In the general terms included
the whole work TO be done was thrown open to
| general competition
Ia answer TO the thirteenth point 1t is SUFFICIENT to
say that the petitioners have wholly tailed 20 show
that the assessment has been Increased by the
irregularity complained Of therein. So far as ap-
| We're fair and reasonable, and the petitioner re.
celved beneht by reason OF THESE prices being fixed
and considered In the competition for the principal
work.
The fourteenth and fifteenth points are predcated
upon the recent decision OF the Court OF Appeals In
the matter Of Laura H. Eager and Others, to vacate
certain assessments In the city OF New York. In
| my Judgment that decision does not apply TO the
fact proved Ia TINS proceeding. In that case the
advertisement was TO construct NiCOlsOn pave.
ment In the localities described" and did not open
to competition all the WORK to be done. In this
| the advertisement submitted The whole work to
general competition. In that case no one but the
| Nlcolson Pavement Company was permitted to eX.
anime the specifications or bill Tor the contract
either as TO the whole work or as to crosswaks,
curbstones &c. In this case, by the advertisement
| all parties engaged In the business OF repaving
streets were called upon to compete Tor this con:
tract. and the proofs show that such parties did
compete for the whole contract, and in detail, for
each aud every OF the items OF this work, In the
| case OF Eager, the Court OF Appeals held, were
| errOneOusly excluded from competition.
| The sixteenth point Is sustained by section Of
| the act.
The seventeenth Is not sustained by the proof.
the eighteenth, in relation to the form or the
| warrant cannot properly be reviewed In this pro
| ceedlng; but, II IL could, It Is correct In FORM as
the law requires alldavit from the Collector that
such warrant has been preliininarlly Issued. In
accordance with these views an order may be en-
tered reducing The assessment against petitioner In
such sum as sad assessment has been Increased by
including therein the sum OF fifty cents per square
yard Tor grading
Order to be settled before me on notice of one day.
q. Il. PRATT, ]. ). q.