The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-20
SUPREME C0URT-CHAMSsRs.
Another Legal Wranglo on Brick Pome
rOy's City Advertising.


Before Judge Barrett.
In re Mark Pomeroy vs.. The Board Of Audit, TO-
There another long discussion in this Court yes
terday on the subject ofMark Pomeroy,s BILL amount
Ing to some $4,000, for city and county adver-
Using In the Democrat Unusual interest attaches
to the case, as this Is brought forward as q test
suit, there being some eighty papers, whose bills
aggregate $4,000, 000 having similar claims against
the city, for which they cannot get their pay. 1t
will BIO remembered that mandamus was applied
for by Mr.. Pomcroy against the Board Of Audit and
that Judge Barrett granted one, directing the
Board ito audit and allow the claim in whole or In
part, as to them might seem just" Some dssats-
faction was expressed at this, and the Judge set
down yesterday for rcargument Of the CASE The
court room was densely crowded, very many being
newspaper printers. Pretty much the same line Of
argument was gone over as on the previous argu-
ment, which was published at considerable length
In the HERALD.
Mr. Lawrence reviewed at length the act OF 1872
providing for the payment Of the claims Of newspa-
pers for city and county advertising. The Legisla-
OF offices as to official advertising in this city and
with this knowledge passed the act In question,
and with It made provision for the payment Of the
various claims that would be presented under the
same. He denounced the attempt to get rid OF
payment of these claims upon mere technical OBJ
fairly done, and payment was justly due. As to Mr.
Pomeroy, he insisted that his paper was duly ap-
pointed under Jnc act OF 1858 corporation news
paper; that this appointment was never revoked
and that the same was, therefore, continuous. The
Board of Audit was required to audit their claims
disregarded the directions of the Legislature.
Mr.. strahan on behalf Of the Board Of Audit said
there were t,s claims inns Of out
lie insisted +. t1s IS0ssSn Of the
election notices, OF the advertising OF the Central
Park commissioners and various other advertise
sum-were without any authority whatever, and
that Mr. Pomeroy, in his aidavlt, lays no claim to
ever having received any sncn aatn9r ny setting
really should be paid amounted to but little.
Mr.. O'Gorman said he did not believe that any Of
the papers whose bills were now presented for pay
ment were appointed Corporation papers under the
act OF 1870. This law limited the number Of papers
to seven daily and seven weekly, and under this
law he insisted that no previous appointments were
continued beyond this time.
Judge Barrett suggested that some OF the news
paper proprietors, not having had their appoint
ments as Corporation papers revoked, no doubt
considered them continuous, and by continuing
therefore, might be an equitable, though not strictly
legal claim, against the city. He threw this out
simply as q suggestion, and not as an opinion of
Alter some further remarks the Court took tho
papers, reserving its decision.
Bail Refused for Moore, tho Convicted
Emigrant SwindIcr.
In re Charles Moore.-Applicatlon was made to
discharge Moore on ball. 1t will be remembered
that he was some time since convicted In the Court
OF General Sessions OF emigrant swindllng, and
that motion for new trial Is pending on writs OF
error and certiorari IL was urged that his health
is being seriously impaired by his pr0tractcd i'm
prs0nment In the Tombs The Judge refused 10
grant the application, and Moore was remanded to
the City Prison.
Decisions.
In the matter Of the petition Of Reuben Langdon,
&c.-Report confirmed and Judgment OF dissolution
granted.
Mary Binne vs. Christian Binnell.--Referred
back to take further proof &C. See memorandum.
Meyer vs. The PittstOu and Elmore Coal Compa-
ny.-Moton for a reference denied.
Scott ct al. vs.. James Frater ct al.-Motion
granted.
wakeman vs.. Dalling ct al.--Extra allowance OF
$3.50 granted.