The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-18
THE COURTS.
The Civil Judge Of the An.
neXed District.
The Wholesale Swindling
of Jewellers.
CURING DIFFERENCE IN GAS BILLS

Nine suits against the city on claims for value oil
buildlnRs torn down 10 the Church street exten.
sion winch have been on the Supreme Courl. CIR
suit Calendar. we're disposed OF yesterday by Judge
Lawrence, before whom they were set down for
sriai. Following his decision IN the Peters suit
OF the day previous he formally dismissed the
complaints preliminary 10 their being carried up
on appeal.
MT. Dion Boucicault yesterday perfected his
bond In $4,000 with two suretes. In accordance
with the order OF Judge Woodruff. OF the United
States circuit Court OF the southern District. ior
she issuance OF an Injunction restraining Mr. HART
VI the Theatre Comique, from the further rep
ressntaton OF the play OF '.The Skibbeeah,n with
Shs exception OF scenes !, 2, aud OF said play.
rot claimed by Mr.. Bouccault TO DO taken from
.'The Shaughraun.n MIR. Theodore Moss OF No.
Sa3 Madison avenue. and Mr.. Hugh Hastings. No.
ss7 Filtn avenue. appeared as sureties before
DATED states Commissioner Shields and JUS
lined.
The suit instituted by the government to
tower from George Hughes. an importer OF linen
goods, some 100000 Tor alleged differentiation
and misrepresen tation rs to the value o; other
goods, was resumed yesterday IN the United
States District Court, before Judge Blatchiord
The prosecution offered to put in evidence ex.
tracts from the books and invoices OF the de.
iendant seized previous to the commencement OF
the suit, but this was objected 10 py defendants
couusei judge Blatchford sustained the objec-
ton under the provision OF the statute which
renders any evidence taken from the books and
papers OF the parties charged incompetent on q
trial invo wing pc nalty forfeiture against such
party.
JUDGE FLANAGAN SUSTAINED.
The suit brought on quo warranto proceedings BY
the people OF the state OF New York against Judge
flanagan, which came to trial before Judge Van
Brunt holding Supreme Court, Circuit, reached
yesterday Its conclusion. large crowd nlled the
court roon showing the interest felt In the result.
There appeared the same array OF able counsel as
on the opening day-George M. Curtis, +. J. Salmon
and James r. Angel, representing the people. and
John b. Haskin, Chauncey Scnaner and Abel Crook
cooperating with Judge Flanagan, who included
himself. Also IN his list OF counsel. Judge Van
Brunt having stated at the conclus,o on OF the evil
aence the evening before that there was nothing
Tor the jury to pass upon and his willingness to
hear counsel on the law points involved In the
case, the latter proceeded to argue the questions
OF law.
Mr.. Crook opened the argument on behalf OF
the defence. He argued that the New York cleo.
ton laws OF 1872 did cot apply to the case; that
u they did their provisions were directory, be-
sause he laws OF 1873 attached no penalty to the
omission to comply there with that no fraud was
yhown in the case, but, on the contrary, that the
plaintiffs themselves, established the iact that no
Illegal votes we're cast, aud abandoned the theory
OF fraud; and that the natural question was, VINO
received the most votes The plaintiffs. he con-
tended, showed by their own proof That Judge
Flanagan was the popular choice. The Court, ne
nrgeU, must give iorce TO the expression oil the
popular Will. Mere irregularities would not be
permitted to vItlate the coE popul The Court
should 20 behind mere matters Of form and look
~ tile actual substance. lie cited large number
authorities. EQullSh and American
these points, and then insisted urther that II the
onicers mad not done exactly as they did the
Court would, on application, have compelled them
TO do so by mandamus.
Ex-Judge curtis made the argument in reply.
He argued that the statute or 1878 was mandatory
and not directory; that an election held In viola.
ton OF It's express terms was vOii That the In
Bpectors OF election were not de jure nor de Jncto
officers OF election; that great distinction ex-
ISIS between irregularities In an election Con-
auctcd under the color oil law and an election con-
quoted IN open violation OF law; that the doctrine
IN The People W.. Cook and kindred cases, was uu-
douotediy Inc law but applied only 10 cases o. ir-
uun; that the original returns we're
never canvassed. anu that any claim
Of the respondent founded on the canvass Of the
duplicate returns WAS without basis. and that the
notce OF the secretary OF state couo not control,
because in violation OF the statute. The power OF
the Legislature 10 create the ONCE and provide
Tor the manner OF the election was. he urged
necessary, IN order 10 render the election vaid.
that the DIVISIONS OF the act be strictly carried
oot. as laid down IN The People VS.. Bun and
civil Justice OF the Tenth judicial District should
be conducted rnoer and by virtue OF the General
was controlled by the authorities OF the county OF
Westenestcr.
when the motion Tor judgment on the pleadIngs
was made, he wa still OF the impression that Inc
st.tute oil 1913 was directory and not mandatory.
His first impression Was TO the contrery; tut a
careful examination OF tie case had brought him
TO his present relef lie expressed MS doubt as
10 tue accuracy OF MS ruling, as the courts oil
tered so much upon the question OF construction.
rs TO Inc right Oi party to mold Office, this, ire
spectve OF the present question, was to he de-
termiDed by the number OF votes. IL was Imma-
terial whether the returns were originals copies.
The title once not governed oy the
majority OF votes cast. Even l. the inspectors
had forged the returns. then he might hOid the
once. II Judge Flanagan was not declared
elected the whole election would he void, and
there could have been no election OF memUer OF
Assembly, STATE Senator. congressional Repre-
sentative, Judge OF the supreme Court, STATE
Treasurer, Comptroller, Attorney General, Sherlr
oil the county REGISTER or Justices OF the sessions.
The whole matter, however, II lie was Ia error,
could be permanently and satisfactorily set led
on appeal He concluded by directing the jury
10 IND q verdlct Tor the defendant.
moIion was made by the plaIntIn for a stay of
twenty days TO make case on appeal, winch was
yranted.
THE RISKS OF SPECULATION.
The Clinton Iron Company In 1862 being under
nnapctaI cloud. sought some plan oil escape from
lts pressing endorsements. The plan bit upon
vas TO effect a loan oil 5000, 900. Lawrence r.
Jerome put mis- wife down for S. 900 OF the amount
The company gave bonds Tor the amount OF the
subscription with an assignment TO Luther C.
Clark. OF the firm OF Clark. Dodge a Co., and Johz
!. Cisco ana security or the payment sccona
mortgage was gwen on the companys property
aud An assipnme OF the proceeds arising IRON
Lne sale OF the ore Tor three Years shortly after
Mrs. Jeromes name had oeen put down Tor So 100
q letter was sent TO Mr. Jerome puI porting 10 have
come rom Clark and CISCO ASKING ann 10 send
check Tor tie amount, winch he ain. The company
nitcrward became deluuct ana Mes. Jerome has
brought suit against clark and cisco 10 refover
her inoney. Ine Trial o the case began Yesterday
In supreme Court, Circuit, before Judge Van
brunt. IL Is claimed on Oenal oil the plaintif that
the stipulaLlon was that tie subscriptions soould
pc void unless The whole 500, 900 was suuscr1bed
that tile bona Jde subscriptions amounted 10 ONLY
tl45, 600, that the receipt OF the letter rom the
neIcndants calling Tor the cncck was regarded az
. representation Oy them that the whole amount
mad been actually Subscribed Tor, and that on such
Imposition only the cheek was sent. me defend
ants deny having written the letter OF thar i,