The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-01
THE BOARD OF AUDIT CONTEMPT
CASE.

DtsObeying q Perempt0ry Writ OF Nam
damus-Legal Subtcrfuges That Did
Not Work-Thc Board Must Come Up
TO the Scratch and Obey the Writ or
an Attachment be Issued Against the
Members.
1t is unnecessary to repeat in detail, they having
already been given in the HERALD, the facts con-
nected with the application of John 7. Baker, once
on q time clerk In the Finance Department under
months salary. The Board Of Audit would allow
only one half the amount claimed. Baker, like
Mr.. Baker, insisted on q whole loaf or none. APP
plication was accordingly made at Supreme Court
Chambers for peremptory writ OF mandamus d.
recting the Board Of Audit to audit and allow his
claim. His application was granted, the
writ Of peremptory mandamus was, served
on each member Of the Board. and
waste paper. Upon this state OF facts the Court
was importuned to maintain its dignity and punish
the members OF the Board for contempt Of court
was made before Judge Leonard of the Supreme
Court. At this stage OF the proceedings a counter
various technical objections intcrposed to prevent
the matter coming to q decisive issue. Judge
Leonard having heard the argument and having
had the papers for examination several days in mis-
hands, rendered his decision In the case yesterday
The leading points OF this decision are given
below
JUDGE LEoNAHD's OPINION.
The gentlemen composing the Board OF AppOr-
tionment and Audit have duties to perform for the
intentional contempt OF the Court has been in
tended by the neglect which has occurred in obey
ing the peremptOry writ of mandamus heretofore
issued. The proceeding by attachment as for a
contempt is the only remedy whereby the process
can be enforced in case OF an omission to perform
Its directions. Accidental defaults obtained
against puDlic officers should not be held with
severity upon II appearing that the Interest Of the
public requires that a hearing should be had. II
In tnfo hot fhn nfinap oranr
An afidavit that no alternative mandamus was
served Is not sufficient. 1t Is not alleged by the
served The proceednS was commence in June last
by the service OF petition and notice OF motion for
peremptory writ OF mandamus and not an alter
tive writ was served is immaterial. 1t now appears
by a1idavit on the part Of the relat0r In his moving
papers that other similar motions were pending in
July last, when this was reached, involving the
same questions OF law and fact, aud II was then
agreed between the counsel for the reator and the
counsel for the respondent that one q tue motions
abide the result; that under that agreepcpt tho
case on the relation Of Grant was af9Ied III July,
and afterwards decided by Judge Pratt, before
whom II was heard, against the respondents, unless
they made further return on or before the eth of
August ensuing; that the respondents wholly failed
TO make any additional return, and that the order
for
PEREMPToRY MANpAMus
was entered after service OF copy Of the proposed
ofaeT sha the ensh aStS e
which has elapsed since the peremptory writ was
granted, the want Of any evidence that the facts
to the respondents when the motion was heard in
the case OF Grant and the order for peremptOry
writ was settled, require that the motion for leave
to open the default or for an issue upon alerna-
tive writ should be Denied and that the writ of at.
tachmcnt, baiable in $3.50 as to each OF the Com
missioners, should issue, unless the terms OF the
peremptory writ OF mandamus are complied with
by the Sth OF January next