The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-21
THE COURTS.
Argument on the Legality Of
Assessments
COASTWISE PILOTAGE.
The Sandy Hook Men Vic
tOriOus.
THEATRICAL LICENSES.
How the TassinO Verdict
Was Received.

How the Tassino Verdict
Was Received.
Judge Blatchford some time since rejected the
claim of Simeon Rouse for So. 900 in the well known
bankruptcy case OF Leland Brothers vs.. John H.
PIatt assignee, and the case was taken before
Judge woodruff, IN the United States Circuit
Court who yesterday gave his decision, sustaining
shat or the lower Court and granting counsel
twenty days In which to prepare special finding
Of facts for the purpose OF writ OF error, II they
desired to DO so.
Judge Barrett gave Ills decision yesterday deny
Ing the recent motion to vacate the orders,of ar.
rest against Wlnship, the Custom House salary
broker. There are six OF these orders-dve Tor
aege frauds in connection with his salary broker.
age business and one Tor contempt Of Court in
not paying alimony to MS wife, with whom there
II divorce SUIT pending, and the aggregate OF
bail required n oil OF these Is $46500. Meantime
Mr.. Winship Is enjoying the Inequalities Of Lud-
low Street Jail.
WAS 1T A FRAUDULENT ASSESSMENT?
John Matthew's. having obtained preliminary
order OF injunction against the Board OF RevisiO
aud Correction OF Assessments, in the matter OF
confirming the assessment Tor regulating, grad
ing. CURLING, gutterng and tagging Seventy. 1th
street, between Filth avenue and the North River,
which assessmenc amounted to about $l25 ,OOO
the argument on the question Of Affirming the in
junction was heard yesterday, before Judge Curtis
In Superior Court, Chambers. Mr.. A. OaEey Hall
moved for the plaintin, upon q very vouminous
equitable bill and several bulky afidavits. Mr.
John W. Strahan appeared as counsel for the
Board, and his papers ana afddavits were quite az
extensive.
II appeared from the argument that In 1857 the
Common Council without proper advertisement,
lor the benefit OF owners, oil the action OF the CON-
mittee in appraising the assessmenp had re-
Quesred the Street Commissioner to make con-
tract for the work. This contract was given to
Patrick Quinn, who, on the same day he received
Il, assigned 1t to one Masterson.
1t was claimed That the bid was colusive be-
tween city oficials and Quinn; that the proposed
contract called for six kinds OF work, for two Of
which he bid sums three times In excess OF what
other persons bid; but the four other items Of
work he offered to do for nothing, while the other
parties named prices Tor these lour matters. Thus
his aggregate, although larger on two items, was
work for which he was to be paid these enormous
prices, but purposely reralped from dong any OF
the work which he was To do Tor nothing. and
thereby mad received moneys TO the extent or
lbOut $685. 600 In q fraudulent way. and that then
the contract was abandoned, leaving untouched
che work that he was to do Tor nothing, and mat,
Notwithstanding his abandonment OF the contract
and his demand in such wonoeru excess, MS
BOND to the city had not been prosecuted by order
OF the Comptroller TO TINS day. 1t was claimed
that this action on his part was fraudulent that
mer OF 1872 Of judges Van Worst and surnerland
and David q. Jaques, refused to certify to the mat
ter.
1t was shown that after the abandonment OF the
contract the city relet the work. and especially
the work that was to have been before done for
not aenied that the officials had the right relet
THIS VI the manner they DID without ADVERTISE
m hnf hof m 10 linn tftn
pensive 20 the city treasury. This part Of the
contract however, was Affirmed by the investigate
Farley was SAID to be, on the argument. 500 COO
more; and It was claimed by the pIaintin. who
Fifth avenue and the East River, on Seventy niln
street, without exception, that not one SIM
gle item oil the specifca lions was other than
wfetchedly done; the street. was flied in with
huge poulders OF rock. 80 that II was almost in
possible to connect with sewers, or Croton water,
Of gas pipes, and that the water would run
through the streets, IN consequence OF there being
no filing between tue rocks into the cellars.
dsvs On this point He well IKE Known Sr9a soase
builder In the upper part OF the city. Ii also
claimed that the street was imperfec;ly graded ;
that the cutters and curb stones we're thin; they
were not wide enough: they were la,d out OF line.
Nevertheless, as was SAID. with sundry warm COM
1874, with Iull knowledge OF the ieeling OF the
property owners on this subject, certified the work
at $127,714 So; and that his certificate included
not only the Farley contract, approved by the
Board, but the QUINN Contract. which was not ap-
proved
Counsel for plantIn pleaded for an Injunction
against the Board confirming assessments on the
ground that none OF the assessment officers had
ever obtained jurisdiction; that the public OF.
nctal who originally sought to let the contract
never obtained jurisdictions that the orclal who
relet It ought not to acquire 1t, because juris-
dictlon was dependent upon the first one tnat
the Certifying Board In the matter OF the Farley
neither the Board OF Assessors nor the co mptroi.
Ter have Obtained 1t. aud that the Board
sought to be enjoined ought not to assume 1t. 1t
~ Qa had NV
Of the Andrew H. Green statutes Of assess:
bad csnarmed there could be no suit tAs at
law except Tor actual fraud; that this was
Of the ana the relation to 1t OF certain city
officials, but that the fraud was OF an equitable
nature, gathered from ali toe circumstances. That
~ THIS statute OF 1874, II the assessment con-
hrmed, there would be O cloud put upon the title
OF the PLAINTIFF to his lot and ol all the coowners
: on That street. That under the peculiar working
OF the law or 1874 the acIOn In confirmation by the
Board OF Revision raised the presumption that
every thing as legal ana that the lots were ever
leased Tor on OF the mt the lease
given on the sale subject 10 redemption was pre-
sumptive evide nee OF the LEGALITY OF the proceed
lnQs and had To be exactly attached, and hOwev
rough 1t might be for the City treasurer to pay Tor
the delinquency and shortcomings Of prior
officials IN times gone by. yet the Court OF Equity,
under all the circumstances, ought to interfere to
prevent the Board from accomplishing such in
wonderful sum Of Sl27,000 as lien money on lots,
SO lar rom being IN the slishtest degree benefited
py Tue SO-cuIleu Improvement, were damnlied
twice that amount In the injury zone TO the prop
erty by tue fraudulent WORK.
on tue part OF the Board it was as warmly con.
tened mat the equitable relief the Court should
be Withheld, because there was palpabe and
complete remedy at law, by action TO vacate the
assessment Tor fraud. In opposition to the ain.
davlts showing the fraudulent character OF the
work, the opposing aflidayits GAINED that the
work was properly DONE ana that the certificate
under the ley contract approved the work
under the Quinn contract, and that the Conptro Ter
was bound TO Include the amount OF tue assess
m n Nnn N In n A hah
no discre ion In the premises and That the Boaru,
having quasi judicial duties to PERFORM could not
be enJOned.
In reply 1t was said that the remedy at law
must be plain and adequate, and that the remedy
at law by petition, under the law OF 1885, must be
Tor particular fraud, whicn meant actually fraud
sucn as alteration OF hgures and contract, or any
apportiOnment OF expenses or forgery oil names,
or omission OF one lot lnten iionally from the as
sessment In the area or TO include lot not In the