The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-24


ton Counsel De witt Upsetting tho
Park Comm ission-An Important Rul-
ing.
Before Judge Pratt.
Peter Riley, contractor, yesterday sued the city
Of Brooklyn to recover $55,370. which amount he
alleges he lost on the contract for the grading and
regulating OF the Sackett street Boulevard. The
contract was originally awarded to Frank Swift at
$4,000, and Riley purchased it from him for
$1,000 The work was to be done under the super
vision Of the Park Commission, according to the
profile and sections provided by their engineer,
and according to the specifications annexed to the
contract Riley's story is that having made some
progress in the work he found that the profile upon
which the contract was based was incor-
rect and untrue, inasmuch that 1t set forth
that there was dirt enough on the line
OF the street within the section with
which to do the required filling In and leave sur
plus belonging to him. whereas the fact was that
there was not dirt enough, and he was compelled
to cart large amount Of dirt In order to fulfil his
contract Riley had made contracts to dispose Of
the surplus earth represented to be on the
ground Tor from twenty-five to thirty-Hve
cents yard, and the prospective obtain
ing OF it was one OF the principal induce
ments that led him to buy the contract from
Swift. Upon making the discovery referred to he
notified President Stranahan, OF the Park Commits
ssd ne be- paa the extra work
loss sustained by reason Of the ncorrectness OF the
profile. He thereupon completed the work and
claimed $55,370 for extra work., &c, payment Of
which was refused
The city admits that in some respects the profile
was erroneous, but claims that Riley was bene-
nted by such errors as existed. Riley had never
been informed that IL was correct, and he had no
right to rely upon 1t as being guide to him in the
work or representation OF the amount Of work
required. 1t Is also claimed that he suffered no
loss In consequence OF the alleged fncorrectness
and that for valuable consideration he executed
q valid release to the Park Commission.
Cooperation Counsel De Witt, after the opening
missal Of the complaint on the opening, II being
conceded that the Commissioners had proceeded
under the act OF 1868, authorizing the widening
and extension OF certain strcets in Brooklyn. Mr..
De Witt, in support OF his motion, raised the fol-
lowing important POINTS,
rst-The Park Commissioners were not officers of the
city and contracts entered into by them could not be bind
Ing upon the city The act Of 1865 IN
by people OF the city OF Brooklyn were authorized
BY the sctao spend the money Of the city Of Brooklyn
map the city Of Brooklyn. The Leglslaiure had no
Ing and paving of the street and its Improvement by
planting trees &c 20 transfer corporate powers
The article of the constitution Is specific that local
bills shall embrace more than one subject and that sub
ThirdmRilcy Claims TO recover Tor extra work outide
of the Before he entered upon tho he had
opportunity Of examnIn lining me street Tor himself and
done; nc might have employed engineers TO ascertain
that for him and was not bound to rely upon the profile
The Court granted the motion on condition that
| defendant should stipulate to take short notice oil
/ appeal 10 the General Tcrm In May, when the ex
1 ceptions Will be heard with full bench.
BY this ruling 1t would appear that oil work doac