New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-08-09
THE COURTS.
MUNICIPAL LITIGATIONS.
THE TENTH NATIONAL BANKS ADVANCES ~ INN
NEW COURTHOUSE COMMISSION.

r,,p TENTH NATIONAL BANKS ADVANCES To HE
NEW COURTHOUSE COMMISSION.
Abraham r. Lawrence moved before Judge
Pratt in the Supreme Court. yesterday lor CO. IS
against the City Controller, on behalf OF inc o-
National Bank The for the reator is tna' III oi
the bank advanced TO the Commissioners OF 'ne NC"
Courthouse, from time 70 time' sums aihoun's "
900 k7o A the last cum on the direct application Oh ooh
troler Conpoly and on his promise 10 Issue ponus "
payment and that they had been IN the haoi' VI
advances 10 most Of the city departments DO N
o,,red A motion was made before Juueo oai
rett in June 1872, for mandainus W 0onpo
,ho controller to pay them, and the matter was re-
farred 10 Judge Hoffman as referee 10 report
:, tho money was advanced in good faith ahu
:, 40 what sums we're available and II the report were
favorable to the reator, peremptory nahualnus was
10 issue for paying 70 the elators any m
the Controllers hands me referee ac NO Evidence
of want Of good faith the part OF the DahS ~ m H
the advances; that out OF the mpneys nt 30 Court
raised under the act Of 1871 for the paynehI VI
house claims balance Of $4,000 was In the CohIoer
hands july 1874 Of which 5000 mas De1n su oved
pended leaving $4,000. On that report counsel noVsd
Tor peremptory mandamus for the payment OF sSVVD
or $4,000 His Honor should decide put counsel n s
that the 5000 being paid out pending the suit MI
Green was not entitled TO credit for H. -
Mr.. strahan counsel for the Controller replied tnat
the advances were not made in good fath Tor purposes
in relation 10 building the Courthouse, but were eRa
from the inception and the case stood on mat
alone the REALTORS could not be paid bu beside inns Ie
Controller was only authorized TO raise 10000 for pay
ment these claims and every cent OF IL mas Deeh pa
under peremptOry mandamuses - -, III.
MT Lawrence denied that IL was paid when the suit
was brought, and sid that Judge Barrett wrote MS
order from knowledge OF large balance Delhg avail
able. 49,. 80
Mr. strahan went to cay that the referee took no
proof as ordered He directed TO take proof OF the
allegations but he looked at book or voucher or
examined witness but, the mere ahdavits already
before the Court took II upon him TO report as his op
ion that the advances made in good faith, ana
there was balance available 10 meet them, whereas
MFR StOrrss affidavit contradiced both statements Mr.
Green had no knowledge of the claims The moneys
were given TO Mr. ngersol director Of the bank win
the full understanding that they we're not Tor Court
hOuse purposes Counsel here read affidavit OF Henry
r. Taintor clerk in the Controllers office IN support OF
his argument. , 49,, g.,
Mr. Lawrence said the burden OF proving fraud lay
with the defendants. There was great nourlsn OF
trupets about fraud In this other city cases. put no
one was before the referee 10 prove IT or mpuBn the
good faith OF the REALTORS.
Mr.. Strahan said he prepared then and now 70
maintain that there fraud. Mr. LAWRENCE In reply
to Mr. Taintors affidavit, read one from MI Bliss Tor
mer President Of the bank showing that the money was
advanced TO the Courthouse Commissioners on me Con
troers guarantee. Judge Pratt suggested sending he
case to the referee If there was any new
10 I've taken, but Mr. Strahan promptly OBJECTED Inc
Court then took the papers, and reserved decision