The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-16
SUPREME COURT-CnAMBERs.
Advances by Banks to tho Court Hons.
COmmi ssiOnera.


Before Judge Barrett
The People ex rel Tenth National Bank Vs. An
drew H. Green, Comptroller.-Th full particulars
Of this case have already been published in the
HERALD. 1t win be remembered that during last
year the Tenth National Bank advanced money to
various Boards of the city; that in January last an
act was passed by the Legislature providing that
repay the funds advanced by this and other her
moneyed institutions to any departments Of the
city and county, and that subsequently an amend
ment was passed providing that this should not ex
tend to cases where the payments were provided
for out Of special funds but this amendment was
of the character stated. Among the ad-
made I'd BY the renn Nona Bank
sum Of $457, 493 IS to the Commissioners
Of the County Court House; that there was q spe-
cia fund Of $4,000 to be raised on bonds for the
by the Tax Levy Of 1871 that OF this fund the Com
missioners demanded s25o,ooO, and the Board OF
y this was "a pad to
leaving stif OF the appropriation made by the Board
OF Audit power in the Comptrollers hands to raise
$4S 022 %. The entire present claim of the bank Is
$685. 15 So, for which mandamus was applied for
to Judge Barrett. This application was opposed on
pay It out Of the special $3.50 ooo and that he could
not raise the fund without the precedent action Of
the Board of Audit authorizing that special stock
the County Court House stOck-tO be issued; and,
second, that the bank did not make these advances
IN good faith, but with the knowledge that James
for the, legitimate purposes OF, the commits
sion, and that they were not so used. Judge Bar
rett gave his decision yesterday morning. He held
that under the amendment OF February the Comp
tr0ller cannot be compelled to pay this sum until
the Board Of Audit authorizes the issuing OF the
necessary amount OF the special County Court
House bonds, and that though they must not I'M
reasonably hinder or delay the repayment Of these
moneys, the Board is entitled, before giving such
authorization to have before 1t, in some judicial
form, proof that the advances were properly made;
but the Comptroller has power to raise 022 q
under the previous action Of the Board, manda-
mus would issue put for the allegation Of bad faith.
The bank II 1t acted in good faith, is not RESPONSE
BILE for any subsequent misrepresentation BY the
however, to send this question of good faith to
Murray HOFFMAN as referee, and IL the latter finds
In favor Of the REALTORS the mandamus for the
smaller sum will issue.
Not Appearing Before a Referee.
Benjamin Wood VS.. G. E. Simmons.-In this case.
which is a suit growing out Of policy agents. mo-
ton made yesterday punish the defendant for
contempt for falling to appear and give his testi-
mony before a referee The motion was denied, on
the ground that the order was irregular In not
was to be made.
In the matter of L. w. p. King.-Memorandum
for counsel.
Matilda Lombach VS.. George w. Chander-Rep0rt
confirmed and Judgment Of nullity granted.
Pedro MonteO VS.. Maria MOntellO.-BOth hus-
band and wife were not inhabitants OF the State at
the time OF the commission of the offence, nor was
the marriage solemniZed, nor the offence committed
here. The report cannot therefore be confirmed.