New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-01
APPEALS FROM ARMORY RENTS.

THE CITY SUSTAINED IN ITS DEMAND FOR NEW
TRIAL IN THE NILSSON HALL CAsE-ANOTHER
LEASE DECLARED VOID FOR WANT OF AUTHOR
rlY IN THE SUPERVISORS TO MAKE 1T.
In 1872 some negotiations were entered into
for the hiring OF Nilsson Hall as armory The owner
leased It 10 Daniel Fallon for ten years at $1,000 per
annum. Mr.. Faon an employee OF the Common
Council and u brOtherInlaw OF Supervisor william
Joyce william Joyce and ID. ID. Conovor were the Com
mi,toe of the Board of Supervisors ArmOres. The
96th Regiment pressing for an armory, and the 0h
Regiment was occupying TammaDy Hall, the lease OF
which the Supervisors hal resolved to give up Under
these circumstances the Supervisors leased NILSSON Han
from Daniel Fallon at $4,000 per annum' ana
ar once assigned Ii to the 9th Regiment.
The Controller refused pay the rent and Daniel Faon
brought suit the He claimed that under an act
NJ 1873 all provisions OF previous laws which nyadated
lenses Of armocs for lack OF preliminary steps by tho
military auhOrites abogaed, and the lease was
only act lawfully after formal demand from military
organization for ar1nory, ana that hs lease WIS pro
cIrrd by fraud On the trial q great zeal OF evidence
was given az to the circumstances under when the eae
was given; hut the Court finally took the whole mater
from tine ury and decided the lease to be valid, giving
Ind rrnt for tie plaintiff. From this judgment the city
appealed to the Supreme Court, General Term WHICH Sus
The Court nds that Chapter 57s OF the Laws of 1873
provided that nothing contained in any act heretofore
oesed should prevent the payment or arreaS Tor rene o.
arlnoos in certain But the Court holds tat ths
provision only refers TO the act Of 1871 when expss
exceped arory rents from debts OF the city to be paI
by the Controller aud does not validate any leases vo
fraud want of authority in the @ III
further that this action not for arrears OF rent WITHIN
the meaning OF the act OF 1873 Judge DAVIS gNhs tec
opinion OF the Court holds that the jury SHOULD nave
been permitted pass the question or 1raud lhere
was evidence of fraud, and as they were nor the Court
mist TO determine whether there was sucn eVlence ooh
at the case as though il had stood upon the delenut
evidence ONLY Jury would certainly nave Deen Justi,
fed Ina scanning this transaction with jealous eye anu
uerhaps in concluding that 1t was snug ana shrewu
fte lob 10 secure the plaintiff comfortable income
az ~ 800 per for ten years at the expense VI the
taxpayers OF the city, and IL IL quite possible tat tney
might have believed and found that u was brought ABOUT
hy collision between the plaintiff and some OF the OFFICIALS
connected with the affair." and have stamped the traac
tiou rs fraudulent As this ground retrlai OF
thc case will have be ordered Judge Davis holds not
mnorant 10 consider whether the proper demand Tor
lease was made on the Board of Supervisors by any m
fary orRanzaOn but intimates that the evidence SHOWS
tat the armory was intended for the 9TH Regiment ana
h9t the effort base the lease on demand Dy the ooh
Regiment is one which jury may well question.
In the case OF Ford against the Mayor Tor rent ON
lease of an armOry made in 1872, no question 0i Ilau
ia raised by the city, but the Supreme Court, General
Term Judge Daniels giving the opinion holds tnat ~ te
absence of any demand by SPECIFIC military pocy n
compliance with Section 100 OF tho military code inc
Supervisors had authority TO hire dril iooH or
arnory The occupancy Of the premises ny tne In In
Regiment does ratify validate the lease 10 hold
So would be 10 open an easy path f1r onces % h
he! authority In binding tho city Judgment Is tnere
fore given for the city,