The New York herald., 1873-12-18
SUITS AGAINST THE CITY.
Eight Suits and the City Beat in All of
Them-Hov the. City's Litigation of
Claims Rolls Up Interest and Costs
Important Verdicts Involving Import-



Claims Rolls UP Interest and Costs
Important verdicts Involving Import-
ant Questions.
There seems TO be a foregone conclusion that
the city is bound 10 come OF second best In the
suits brought against 1t. Such result was cer-
tainly most conclusively shown-though 1t is very
rarely that suits are brought with such wholesale
rush-in various suits brought yesterday In the
Court or Common Pleas before Judge Larremore.
There are few Judges, moreover. on the bench who
could despatch with such rapidity. The
cause Of the special rush In this line OF litigation,
however. was owing 70 the fact Of Mr.. Abraham x.
Lawrence, Jr, the newly-eected Supreme Court
Judge, being the prosecuting counsel in most Of
them, and his desire, no doubt, TO bring them 70 a
termination before entering his duties as Judge.
In all the suits tue city represented by assist
art counsels to the Corporation, ID. j. Dean and n.
J. Forker.
THE SALARIES or STATE COURT OFFICERS.
First In Importance, though not FIRST IN order.
was suit brought against the city by Thomas
Sweeny TO recover balance OF salary due as an
ofiicer OF the Court OF Common Pleas. The time
for which he claimed balance OF unpaid
salary from June l, 1870, 70 July 1, 1871.
1t appears that previous to June, 1870 all the
officers OF the various State Courts were
paid salaries at the rate OF si,200 year.
their salaries TO $1,000 year. This. no doubt was
well intentioned on the part OF the Supervisors but
the result proved they raised the salaries so high
the officers could not reach them. In other words,
they have never been paid this additional salary.
To test the business OF the claim the present suit
was brought The defence was that according 10
the charter OF 1870 the Board OF supervisors
exceeded Its authority In raising these salaries;
that the plantin at the end OF each month
had signed pay roll cmbodyng receipt "in fnil
Tor all services to date,' and that the signing OF
such receipt was bar against any claim for ad-
dtional pay. The plaintin was called as a witness
In ihs own behalf, and testified that In every In
stance when going for his salary he demanded the
additional pay and signed the receipts under pro-
test. Judge Larrem0re said he would leave IL 20
the jury TO decide whether signing such receipts
was, under all the circumstances, receipt full
Tor services. The jury took but a few minutes 10
consider TINS question and promptly decided that
IL was not. Upon this decision a warrant was
ordered for $702 So being the full amount claimed.
Tne importance attaching TO this case s the TACT
that the Court officers serving at that time, under
this verdict, are entitled 10 the same amount
MARINE COURT OFFICERS GETTING THEIR DESERTS.
The oifcers OF the Marine Court Thomas Wild
and Edward u. Holly, found hitch In their pay.
They brought suit Ior payment OF salaries Tor the
FIRST four months Of last year. In their cases the
points OF opposition taken were that by special
act OF the Legislature the number OF ofhcers
was limited TO twelve, that among those
thus appointed their names were not included, and
tnat consequently they had no sort Of clatp TO