The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-01
COAAOLLTS LEGAL CONTESTS
More Time to Answer the Supervisory Complaint
Grantsd-Counssl ON Public Clamor and
Newspaper Criticism and Judge
Barnard on the Merits
Of the Question.

VI tuo QuosUOus
The argument upon the application for tire td
answer the complaint or the Board Of Supervisor1
against ex-Comptroller Connolly was heard yesters
day before Judge Barnard, Of the Supreme CourTd
sitting the Board OF Supervisors chamber. There
were very few persons in attendance The opposs
ing counsel-Mr. S. G. Courtney appearing for tnd
ex-Comptroler and Mr.. Richard O'Gorman, COunsen
to the Corporation; George I1cknor Curtis and ex-l
Judge Porter representing the Supervsors-wercs
OF course, promptly on hand.
WHAT coNNoLLY's COUNSEL SAID
Mr.. COURTNEY opposed the argument He stated
that the object OF the application was TO await tha
decision OF the appeal in the Albany SUIT Of The
People VS.. Conuolly-this appeal being from an
order OF the Special Term at Albany denying
motion TO vacare the order OF arrest against Mr..
Connolly. The main question on rnls appeal, he In
sisted was whether the ALBANY suit could be Matn~
tained by the people, or whether the Supervisors
were not the only proper plainifrs. The two snitsa
ne further urged were substantially the same, re~
ceve some six millions Of dollars allowed by nink
of the Auditing Board. In his view the Super.
visors were the only proper plaintins. He could
not, however, interpose the proper answer for Mr..
Connolly until the Court OF Appeals decided whether
the other suit was not proper. II the pe0-
ples suit were properly brought. It's tendency
would be bar TO the present suit. II IL were NOS
for popular clamor ana OF fear on the part Of
officers OF presenting anything for newspaper critic
clsm this extension OF time would be granted by the
opposing COUNSEL since 1t was equitable right Of
the defendant ana no harm could come to the publ
lie by the delay.
REPLY OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL.
Mr.. O'Gorman said in reply that he was here u
perform an olcial duty counsel for the Supervtt
sors. without any regard whatever to public claorY
| and from no wish TO court newspaper favor. Ha
brought the present suit on the 10th OF Octobera
| and an answer should have been made "a
' 2we sg the Of @e had
been granted on account OF the engagements Of
Of the q psnscy o on
the defendanI's counsel did not believe tnas
ns 0 Honor suit had Sad neS a
opinion. He did not himself think that II had Deen
Fn nor al h ns e Wa 70 Sax
the present suit stayed till after the 18th OF March,
the men on the ire
motion. If granted, would be practically stay:
proper to call the attention OF the Court. 1t was
| charged That this suit, together with fve Others
were brought collusivey and under the direction Oh
| the Mayor, who had complete
CONTROL OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL.
One OF the counsel-the late Attorney Generate,
was true, was reported to have said that there was
slonal honor Of the Corporation Counsel. Il
Mayor had by law control over the actions Of the
law officer It was mistake OF law. II 1t meant any
fuence mad ever been. was not and never would be-
attempted. The suits once commenced were UNDER
ment that they were colluslvely brought ne had
simply TO- say that TT NV was completely tIosna
General he imputed no improper motives lie aid
not think It advantageous to the public to imputa
or 10 give oec but as due to the
Court, to the profession ana TO his clients. j
M TIVE With
the political excitement under which the people'g
was, he said an instrument But excitement had
served Its purpose. lie had nothing to say OF its
which attention should be drawn. lie could scarcely
| imagine that the Court OF Appeals should sustau
OF litigation, II sustained and carried through.
would
BANKRUPT THE STATE.
The Justice at Albany, before whom the question
| was pressed, avoided deciding 1t. The Genera4
Term had not decided L, and probably the Court Of
directly before them on demurrer or fnal trial.
| The excitement mad now passed away, and It was
the hard-pan OF the law. lie trusted HIS HONOR
would pursue simple, straightforward action, andl
deny the present motion, without any reference to-
the Albany suit.
Mr.. Courtney In reply, said he was glad to ma
one ofIlcer unterrifed by public clam0r. He had
applied his learned friend for this extension, who
Court The question here was not as to the right OF
the people TO bring an action put whether their ao-
put to the trouble and hazard Of
TWO JUDGMENTS
The fact that in that suit two orders OF arrestshad
been granted was evidence that IL did exist. He
had yet TO learn that the Court OF Appeals would
snd ' eaa they Ssve %s
to answer until decision OF fhe Court OF Appeals
He was glad his friend, the Corporation Counsel,
charges In the complaint, which he had himself
never believed and which, probably, had only been
put In the theory that the state might rectify all
wrongs where the injured party did not complain.
The question was whether the defendant was to be
CRUSHED BETWEEN TWO SUITS.
II the Court OF Appeals rendered an opinion that
the peoples suit was right that would be the end OF
the suit brought by the supervisors.
THE JUDGE ON THE MATTER.
The Judge said he saw no reason for going ont OF
the ordinary line OF action. Such applications were
granted every day. No Injury could arise Dy grant
Ing the motion In this case. III the case was put az
issue day, 1t would be at least year and half
before 1t could be tried
INTERRUPTIONS OF COUNSEL.
Mr.. Courtney said this was an equity suit.
Mr.. O'GOrman said he considered Il had PREFER