The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-16
BROOKLYN COURTS.
SUPREME COURI-SPsCIAL TERM.

Questioning the Validity or Laws and
the Actions OF Public Omcers.
Before Judge Pratt.
Judge Pratt yesterday denied the motion OF
Thomas Prosser for the continuance of the injunc-
ton restraining the Board OF Education from APP
plying q certain sum OF money $41, 900, to other
purposes than the erection OF public school house
in the Twenty first ward. Mr.. Prosser contended
that this amount had been appropriated by the
joint board for the erection Of school building in
that ward, and that therefore, the Board
Of Education, who had determined to
make school improvements in other wards
had no right to expsud 1t for any other purpose
The case has excited considerable comment in
Official and private circles In Brooklyn, and the
decision OF the Court was looked forward to with
unnecessary to examine the merits or this contro-
versy, as 1t appears from the complaint that no
threatened to him, which is not equally grievance
to all the other taxpayers in the district de-
scribed No injury peculiar to the plaintir
stated in the complaint is true. In greater
or less degree every person in that part or the
upon The lot designated ana It may be and proSa-
bly, s true that failure TO build schoolhouse in
that locality win be serious injury to all the In;
settled that for wrongs against the public whether
actually committed or only apprehended, the rem
edy Is by prosecution instituted by some officer
authorized by law to act In its behalf. Any other
rule would Involve the community in excessive
litigation and harass public officers with vexatious
suits. nevery taxpayer had right to question
THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW OR THE ACTION OF
PuBLiC OFFICER
in the Courts In respect to his rights In common
with other taxpayers no law could be executed,
no tax collected and no officer permitted to per.
form his duties When an act Of the legislature
rights OF citizen he has his appropriate remedy
by suit, but II his grievance consists in wrong,
not an injury to his individual rights, but
in one, he suffers i'll common with his
fellow citizens. he must invoke the action OF the
onicer or party empowered to sue in such cases.
These views are only applicable to the cases where
private PERSON, or number OF persons, assume
in behalf Of the lu6lic or IN their own names. to
to defend their official duties. Every citizen is pre-
sumed to be interested in having the law faithfully
relator to suit, proceeding In behalf Of the peO-
pie to compel public officers to perform the duties
| imposed by law but there Is a wide distinction
between the latter proceeding and private suit to
CHAMPION THE RIGHTS OF THE COMMUNITY
and It is one founded on reason and public policy.
Neither will the assumption that the defendants the
Board OF Education, are officers OF the city OF Brook
lyn or bureau OF the city government, change the
aspect OF the case. Section 81 OF Title IL OF the
charter of the city Of Brooklyn does not de scribe
the defendants nor apply in any manner to the
Education. It is immaterial to the decision of this
motion to determine whether the Board OF Educa-
ton Is quasi corporation, created by statute, in
dependent OF the control OF the Common Council,
and placed in charge OF the educational interests
within the territory of the city. tat the MEM
tons prescribed by law. Subordinate and respOn-
sible to the authorities OF such affairs as the
plaintiff by his bill Of complaint appears to have
standing in Court to maintain his action against
the defendant Board In either capacity The mo.
ton to continue the injunction is therefore denied
with $40 costs.
The Third Avenue Sewer Assessments.
motion was made yesterday for the vaca tion of
the assessment for the Third avenue sewer on Ger.
tain property ofJohn G. Leeds. in Prospect avenue
Middle street,, between Fifth and Sixth avenues.
The petitioner claimed that after the original con-
tractor for the work had failed, the Water and sew
erage Board gave the balance OF tine work. without
Advertising Tor proposals, to one Keeney at an ad-
vance OF sl200s0 on the original contract job.
Counsellor De Witt held that. in accordance with
clause In each contract, the Board could alter an
original contractor had failed, give the balance OF
the work out without advertising. The original
contractor would be charged with the de1ciency.
Mr.. Leeds only objected to being assessed for the
excess allowes the second contractor.
Judge Pratt intimating that he would decide to
that effect, counsel arranged TO agree upon state
ment OF facts to be presented to the General Term.
Divorcing a Colored Minister.
Rev. Alexander II. Newton celored clergyman
brought suit against his wife, victorine. an oc-
toroen OF about twenty years, for an absolute d.
vorce on the ground OF adultery, and the case was
referred Yesterday the referee reported m favor
OF allowing the divorce. and an application for the
same was granted by Judge Pratt. The divorced
couple lived In Pineapple street.