New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-01-30
MUNICIPAL COUNTERPLOTS.


The contest over the presidency of the Board
OF Assistant Aldermen came up in the General Term OF
the supreme Court yesterday and argued at Some
length by exJudge Henry Davies the side OF the re-
ator, ex-President WIN. Wade and Charles W. Brooks
on behalf OF Joseph p Strack, the present incumbent
The circumstances Of the controversy are familiar aud
originated with resolution offered in the Board on jan
s. proposing the organization and OF the
Board at the hour of IL, by special order
This resolution was carried. and the Board began
to ballot for President in place OF Mr. Wade under See
shall have power choose President by calling the
names Of the members. upon which call each member
be removed before expiration OF his only by
votes by call Of the Yeas and NAYS OF fourhhs
Of all the members II declares further that such
ton shall not be- construed to require authorize
organization OF the then existing Board OF Ass,stans
once the defense admitting tho facts In the complains
The claims Of OK Judge Davies were. frst that
unlawful for the Board OF Assistant Aldermen which
passed that day. 10 exist until January 1875 tn
organize reorganze after the passage OF that
manner specified in the sixth section OF Article ..
Chap $685. Laws Of 1878 secondly, that Mr. Wade was
thirdly that Mr. Wade could NOS be removed befors
1875. except by vote taken by cali Of the Yeas and
favor VI IL, as prescribed IN the second section OF
Article a. fourthly that Mr. Stracks election was lilo
The whole question turns the construction OF tho
charter OF last April. Mr.. Brooke. on behalf Of ar;
Strack, claimed thot the only way 10 eonsrue tAS
the SrsaS.aiion 81 the = Assistant laefnra under tho
limitations Decision reserved
CHARLES DEvLIN's SUIT AGAINST THE CITY
Judge Barrett presided yesterday in the Su.
preme Court IN the trial VI Charles Deyus suit against
the city for 1IS3 g. which claimed DO due for reg
ulang and grading Seventy nnth-st. under contract
made Nov l. 49,. with William ~ Tweed. who the
Commissioner OF Public Works In the defense Of the
corporation by Messrs. Dean and Forker, IL s claimed
that Tho contract for the given william
Gillespie Ia June 1862 whose bond D~vlins name sp-
peared eaO0 Tue Controller refused pay Devtn
uOess he would deduct the 1000 surety And the sus was
brought for the whole amount Devljn claiming that
there was no notification Of the Abandonment Of the CON
tract and therefore, he WA not responsible for tho
surety Mr. Desu, for the city, urgued mat his making
sec0nd contract proved that DO well VI the
that the claim had been duly approved by the Board
which, according " the STATUTE for the vesy
purpose OF investigating contrass and work done undss
them with Wow Vt ssceraip ming whether they wers
honestly fulfilled Counsel iDsstsd that II vac the auls
OF the city officials and not vi the contractor, II the ~
sesAments bad not oeen collected. L.. ...I..
Judge Barrett. during tho EXAMINATION OF witnessed.
said he should leave 70 the jury TO say whether The
Controller had been negligent In transmitting the =.
amount claimed, aud II the contrary was proved, he
could recover but " per cont OF MS claim. Inc Jury
also told that must decide wnstaer the orig
inal contract was by Gnlcspo, - the city
claimed for In $4,000 On the bond muss Do
Deducted. Tho case will W decided to-day.