The New York herald., 1875-03-09
SUNDAY ADJUSTMENTS.

prevent Adolf Neuendorn from giving theatrical
entertainments on Sunday nights he applied to
Chief Justice Daily, holding Special Term of the
Court Of Common Pleas, Tor an injunction against
che Police Commissioners, restraining them from
interfering with his giving theatrical entertain.
ments on Sunday. Judge DAILY decided in favor of
the Police Commissioners. An appeal on de.
murrer. taken from this decision to the Gener.
II Term, when the case came up TOR argument
yesterday before Judges Ioew Larremore and J. F.
DAILY. About the same line Of argument was made
on both sides as at Special Term.
Mr.. Henry Wehe, on behalf OF the appellant,
Insisted that the act OF 1850, entitled "An act to
preserve tire public peace and order on the first
day OF the week, commonly called Sunday" and by
which the Police commissioners claimed right
10 prevent theatrical exhibitions on Sunday even.
ngs, is unconstitutional He cited various author.
the fact that the subject matter Of the act is not
expressed by the ttle The only object OF the
iormances on sunday. the prohibition Of some
thing that had been formerly permitted. There
tton that the statute was designed to accomplish
such an object.
Mr.. A. Oakley Hall. in opposition, insisted that
the act IN question is constitutional In It's various
provisions. ana he cited in support OF this point
the well known case Of The People vs.. Linden
muller. He then proceeded to argue that although
the act IL local the subject matter OF the act is
sufficiently and intelllgently stated in the title.
Every presumption Is II iavor OF the validity OF
legislative acts, and they are to be upheld unless
there is substantial departure from the or9anic
law. In order TO comply with that provision OF
the constitution which declares tnat no local or
private bill which may pass shall embrace more
title It Is not reon,s,te that iSs east IN t9e
presslve title shall be adopted nor will
courts crltlclse too rigidy the details OF the
Dill to find eXtraneous matter The degree OF
particularly with which the title OF the act IS TO
express this subject rests the discretion OF the
legislature. II the title of an act alrly and rea-
Ionaply announces the subject. which IS a single
one and an the various particulars OF the act have
ance with the provisions OF Ihe constitution above
stated AT the most, the title OF the Is general
New York Is It any answer then 10 say thai the
title should nave added. 'in the city OF New
York;" the body Of the act does not relate to the
preservation OF public order In the state at large:
once IIom the title that y sppnsd TO New York.
.ttn,nnn, Or mlsed ons., By sucn title the CON
combination of measures in local bills and secure
their passage by a union OF interests commonly
announcement Of the SUBJECT OF every such pill to
pr vent me fraudulent insertion OF provisions upon
Every local bi should seand upon its own mers s
and the title OF each bil should indicate the SUB.
lect o. It's provisions, so that neither legislators
nor the public would he mised or deceived For
the above reasons-and he cited numerous uthor-
ltes in their support-he insisted that tho de-
inm murrer m should oe sustained and Judgment given
At the close Of the argument the Court took the
p6pcIb, IcScTVuk Itb ueClSlOus
BUYING AN UNSAFE BUILDING.
The Bowery Savings Bank in December last,
under foreclosure proceedings, sold tenement
house on Thirty-fourth street, near First avenue
Tor $1,000, to Charles A. Jackson. IL turned out
afterward the Iact was not made known at
che time of the sale that the walls OF the building
were unsound and unsafe, and had been so de.
clared by the Department OF Buildings, on this
sla,e oi facts Mr.. Jackson applied to Judge
Lawrence. In Supreme Court, Chambers to Sc
relieved from the purchase and have the sale set
asde. Judge Lawrence gave his decision yester.
day, granting the application. His reasons are
set forth In tue following brief and compre hensye
Dpipion:-
This case in which it me that the mn i'm
caveat empter should not be applied While the pur.
chaser could, by proper examination, and by the ex
erce OF care, have ascertaned whether the walls an.
peared to be safe UNSAFE and could have formel an
opinion that pont he had means of ascertainine
that the walls had been determined to be unsound
and unsafe by the Department OF Buildings This fact
was known to the plaintiff and should. seems to me-
rave scen stated a. TIE sale such smtement
purpose o. bidding The plaintiff and the purchaser cid
aot stand on equal footing in this respect thing
nat the purchasers application should DO granted.