The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-03-29
EXTRA STREET CLEANING.

John Il. Brown, tho Old street cleaning
Contractor, Again ON the Legal War
path-Ho Is Beaten I'm = Trial by
Jury, but Said Not To BE Discounted.
What was known as 1.-THE Street Cleaning Com
mission with Mayor Hall at its head, pursuant to
an act Of the Legislature. authorized Mr.. John L.
Brown, who already had the general contract for
cleaning the streets, to do some extra cleaning OF
certain streets OF the city during the months of
July, August and September Of 1871. 1t was
strictly u health measure, and the particular
streets, from which the superintendent dirt and
filth were to be removed with special care, were to
be designated by the Health authorities. Mr..
Brown for this extra work was to receive $50 900
month in addition to the contract price for the
work amounted to $4,000 1t was all smooth sail
ing SO far. There came, however, 'af
10 HITCH IN THE PAY. ufll Fl lii
The Board Of Audit and AppOrtlonmcnt, when
the matter came before them, refused to audit and
allow the account at the gnres charged. ndi ing
cision Mr. Brown rushed into Court. His first
move was making an application to Judge Fancher,
mandamus directing the Board to audit and allow
the amount Judge Fancher refused to grant such
a writ, but did grant an alternative writ the re-
turn to which was that the services alleged had
not been performed and that the prices charged
Tor the work that had been done were excessive.
This raised question OF TACT, and the Judge there
upon directed the case to be tried before jury.
THIS
commenced several days ago before Judge Barrett
holding Supreme Court, Trial Term, Part 2. There
was coed deal of testimony taken ON both sides.
Mr.. Brown told his story, and there followed cor
roboratops Oh this by his general superintendent,
his sub-supe rintendents all his ward fOremen and
the various clerks in his employ. Ex-Mayor Hall
told how as President OF the Street Cleaning Com
mission, he rode about the city and saw that the
work was done. DR.. COtterman, Inspector OF
Street Cleaning for the Health Department, and
DR.. Morris City Sanitary Inspector testified to the
doing OF the work. For the defence the witnesses
came principally from the Comptroller's Office in-
the items of charges. There were abundant and
able lawyers on both sides-Messrs. Oliver w. West
and s. w. Fullerton defending the interests Of MIR.
Brown, and Mr.. Dean, Assistant Corporation Coun-
sell and John H. Strahan representing the Board
OF Audit. or course, there was an elaborate sum-
ming up and then charge by the Judge.
RESULT OF THE TRIAL.
The case went to the jury yesterday afternoon,
Nearly everybody seemed to think that Mr.. Brown
was sure Of verdict in his favor, but the result
only illustrated the old and Oft repeated Jolly OF
counting chickens before they are Matched. The
Jury had been absent but q short time when they
came into Court and the question was asked on
their behalf by the foreman, ''f they rendered
verdict for the Board OF Audit whether this would
prevent Mr.. Brown getting mis- pay from the city
for the work actually DONE" Judge Barrett told
them It would not prevent q subsequent action
against the city tor such pay, and therefore the
jury announced their verdict for the Board OF
Audit.
SO ends the matter for the present. 1t is not un-
likely, however, that suit will be instituted
against the city with view to see IT, through this
channel, the aty treasury may not be reached