New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-21
THE CORRESPONDENTS.
LETTER FROM Mr.. DEAN tAi.

non.
DEAR SIR: The cases named below were tried by me-
on the part OF the city before the Hon james W Hus
ted. referee The OF the claims and the deleSes
urged thereto follows. Sir Dean here state.
aud analyzes each case aud concludes ~ fOllows:
been engaged ia tgatiOns concerning citf AFFAIRS
almost continuously for Years last past ana have
become wi1h the questions arising therein aud
thereon. have 70 hesitsuon IN assuring
you that IL my opinion, the cases were properly de
cded aud that the result would not have heen fer
II had been tired IA court ana not DeIore
Aieief0'' ''A''" 'O1''' D. j. DIAN
FROM THE Hon. EDwARps rIERerPoNT tBi.
M. 10 NALl-HT., Jan. Is. 1873.
DEAR SIR In the case OF Baird assins the CIV. al
vsed that thenotiOn for reference should DE opposed
WAen the motion on was N Washing on bn' NJ
Carter learned made strenuous OppOslon a-->l'u
yJudge Davies. The supreme Court ordered ne cause
referred. and then /; became u question W1tIheI me
order Of tine Court should % aeduehced al OF Appealed
from. was inclined 10 the opiaon that was more
prIdent 20 yield 70 tho order of the Court ana lhus es
cape the censure whch would surely ioiOh very pos
sbe defeat before jury for reasons which then gave
namely That the responsibility VI reference aIlef the
eXrrtiOns Corpora Counsel 10 prevent IL rested
with Court that the trial would be very long ana
the case was OF such nature thAt New iott ,,tt
would likely disagree or decide agilnst TIE CIV
chances for tie city better before an emf
nent lawyer. whose character ana reputation NtIe a.
than before such jury should be sey 20 se
lag all the facts could 30 fully brOught OUT and II error
committed bY the referee We could appea aRd coz
seem desirable, ana thus have n double aud better
chance for than TO rsE the the hst ~
stance before jury am confirmed IN the opinion 10
LDwAEDs PIKRREroSr.
Il.
FROH TIE HON. HENRY. r. DAVIES. iti.
No. lIo BROADWAY. Jan. 10: $50
DEAR SIR Late IA January 1874. You sent for me
and ON calling AZ your house found yOu very sick man
and much broken with me pressure OF your business
soon after you retained win Judge Plerrepont ami
Mfr. Carter In the suit OF Baird against The Mayor
When motion for referee made 10 that CASE, you
consulted counsel who all hoaght u was advlsaOe
oppose reference such opposi.on was accordingly
made by Mr.. Carter ana myself. bat the motion wa
granted. You invited conference VI me counsel MT
your ONCE 10 determ ne me propneg Of appea.les
rHsr and u
suon appeal wac not advisable i"r tLs,e reasons
l. That II very doubtful II the order OF reference
would be reversed.
That It was not possible, IL any event 70 secure
faithful. impartial and omsetent tribunal, anu
fully guarded. In fact deemed il most fortunate fot
the Interests of the city that t4e case YOU'D De %
Porter The subsequent deye!Opments IN me trtdl OF
me case have convinced that The case codid NOT
baen SO satsfaeory safely tried before grv
as being done Dy the referee appointed py Ine
You seemed to feel your respOnsbt, In ts oAse and
AL my intercourse WITH gu you hpne"lea IA 80
ANXIOUS TO discharge your duty faithfully snd cohsoeA
uou'''' ''"' VII" '''''''' Henry Z. DAVIES
e. Delaneld Smith Counsel TO the Corporation.
IRON DR.. L. Il. PEAsLEE lDi
No % MADISON AVE-. jan. is 1873.
IN, Hon E. DELAFIELD sMITH.
DEAR siKi As your ply sclan can testlf! 70
phrated and ugcrOus illness from which you snheieu
several months last year. iDcudng January and FEB
rnary ns74l OveractOn OF the brain produced an sgo'
nBng neuralgia Of the head, complicated WITH dIseass
OF the throat aud consequent nervous prostrstlon ana
sleepessness which as then informed yon, put your
Hfe in danger and made temporary suspension OF !ou
work ndis pensable 10 your recovery. also wen re-
Kety and the irritation caused you by inc
cases 10 which, in your 0niclal capacity, you were
Obliged % attend. Yours very truly,
p. X. PEAsLEE, ID.
OPINION OF AUGUSTUS =. Smith N IHk STARK
WEATHER CASH III.
No. 90 WALL 81 kEw-N Jan ls1s
L DKLAFIEID SMITH.
MY DEAR DELAFIELD: II gives me pleasure TO recai
the fact That you asked my Judgment upon the propey
OF suing Starkweather. understood that the claim
much OF the c0nm-siOu paid linn as Collector
Of Assessments from that part VI the assess
for opening streets which was by law !ad upon
the city. Understood, further, that starkweAineF
made his claim Ia due that the claim was rrgu
lArly audited and then paid by the Controller then
advised you that had no doubt, and have now no
Doubt that against stsrkweatner for this money
voluntarily paid must have failed. Tue prinoipie
that money voluntarily paid cannot be recO1
cred back, Is just Ms applicable 10 = corpora
ton 10 individual or the ptinci
pie Is not applicable 20 money pad under mistake as
to the fact. bat of this there pretense. Tue
pii~riple which considered governed this mas
been tsr.ed far the Court Of Appeals that rail-
road eonPaSy not allowed TO question a payment
made by us agent upon purchase OF boats BIO used
beyond the line or the ArOad although II was conceded
that the railroad had no right ia make tue aud
the defense was put upon that express ground tarsh
agt Wheeler. y N Y. ISt; also ~ Y aud afie T.
L. agt Marsh. kernau, s03l A payment by tho Coo
rqer wss osary PAY meat ~ ths olts for, Nv slAo.