New-York tribune., 1874-08-26
THE COURTS.
CONTESTED SALARY CLAIMS.

CONTESTED SALARY CLAIMS
DECISIONS IN REFERENCE TO THE CLAIMS OF THK
SUPERVISORS AND iOTHER .OFFICERs-JUDG-
MENTs AGAINST THE CITY.
A short time ago the members of the Board
of Supervisors very disagreeaby surprised to find
that the Controller refused to pay them for their
vices in that Board. His that the office Of
Supervisor was embraced in that Of Alderman. and
they being Aldermen entitled to receive two
salaries This furnished the defense on the part OF the
City during all the subsequent legislation Supervisor
Monheimer became the champion Of his Board, and
brought suit against the city for his salary 10
the first suit the Supreme Court, decision was given
in his favor and this confirmed in General Term
The same questions argued In the present suit A.
Oakley Hall moved, in the Court OF Common Pleas, be-
fore Judge DAILY for judgment In favor OF the plaintiff
Judge Dalys decision given yesterday. and embod
les the following opinion:
The only issue raised By the in this has
therefore been disposed OF by this Court aud the Su
preme Court adversely to the defendant The plea Of
pavmcnt IN the answer must be read in connection with
the other arguments. and amounts to than
allegation that defendant has paid plaintiff the salary
as h ne or VIZ ~ s snarate saary
visor There salary for Alderman of the City of
NewYork and ex oicio Supervior OF the County New
York" but salaries one for Alderman as fixed by
the Charter and one for Supervisor as fixed by prior
statutes. Nor does the subsequent Consolidation
That act does not abolish the office of Super
the Board Of Aldermen to perform duties devovinG
upon the Board Of Supervisors. but for the last four
years. aud for many years prior to 1851 the Aldermen
ments consolidated, but the act recognizes the
necessity for the preservation In form and IN fact OF
Board Supervisors for this County Nothing Is said
in the act as TO the salary which the Aldermen RECEIVED
vsors. Whie the oice itself is preserved nothing Is
the salary ceases because the greater part of the
separate duties OF Supervisors have been abolished
The ncumbents OF he once Q, M
for such office. fnd that the Corporation
Counsel comes 10 the same concluslon Moton granted
JAS Hass claim for salary, assistant keeper Of the
House. after being properly audited, was disputed
by Controller Green, and Mr. Haskill accordingly
brought suit against the city, argued in the Court
OF Common Pleas and yesterday Judge DAILY gave his
decision against the city. He says The Counsel for
the Corporation comedies that there is only one ques
t,on TO be discussed upon the interposed vz
the authority Of Board of Supervisors 10 audit. in
Dec O. 1873 the claim OF plaintiff for 225 service
assistant keeper of the Courthouse from Sept
I. 1871 to June "a, 1872. The plaintiff
reoulary appointed to the place by the oard OF Super
vsors July g. 1902 yearly salary OF 1880 While he
held the position the act passed, (Chap. 1884,
H. Laws of 1901 giving four Commissioners power
IN complete the County Courthouse and de-
claring that thenceforth all powers OF the Board
of superyjsors over the erection OF the said
C,ourt-bouse should cease. But this act
not be construed take away from the Board OF Super
vsors any of It's powers and duties In respect TO the
County Court except the power OF erecting or COM
peting the building Its and custody OF that with
other county offices remained, and the appointment and
employ of keepers, ETC.. had not been removed
The right audit plaintiffs claim as assistant keeper
was unquestionable." Judgment rendered for the
plaDtif for the amount claimed.