New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-17
THE COURTS.
THE CORPORATION COUNsELs SALARY.

THE CORPORATION COUNSEL'S SALARY.
ALL EXTRA ALLOWANCES DECIDED TO BIZ ILLEGAL
Richard OGOrman, the former Corporation
Counsel brought suit for his salary from November,
1871 until 10 succeeded by Mr.. Smith, at the rate
OF % 500 per spnum The city up defense that he
had been paid his full salary $4,000 per and to
this Mr. OGorman demurred that that not bis
foil legal pay. The demurrer argued before Judge
j. f. Daily at the Common Pleas Special Term, who has
rendered the following opinion;
BY the act Chap $685. flaws OF 1870 Section n IL pro-
vded that the Corporation Counsel shall receive an
annual salary 10 be IKE BIZ ne Controller exceed.
Ing the annual compensation paid 10 toe Recorder ana
provision or law iDcOhSstent Wild tnls provision
repealed The salsry thus provided for has been Fixed
by the CONTROLLER ut $4,000 per snnuin' which sum has
additional compensation at che rate OF $3.50 per
aDmn, under Chap. 1872 laws OF 1884, Section 81, y1ca
provides that costs fees. shall hereafter
I've allowed or paid 10 the Counsel O. tho Corporation for
the performance after jan next OF the services
and duties now required bY Law to be rendered by nD
IN any matter PROCEEDING for the opening rendering
extending laying out or Otherwise Improving tho ave-
lie grounds IN the City Of NewYOfk. But IN leu the
Counsel the Corporation shall receive from ana aiter
Jan, l. the sum OF 800 to DE paid quarterly oy inc
Mayor. Al ermen. aud Commonalty OF the CITY Of New
York Al the time OF The passage OF ths act the Conn
sci TO the Corporation was IN Tue receipt OF regular
annual salary, hyed by the Common Council ~ $500
The him $500 additional IN leu OF the fees no
was accu'omet TO receive In the proceedings men
toned IN the section quoted Tdis double cOmpensa.
tiOn amounting together to $4,000 per annum, p8Id
quarterly. iOcumDents OF the Office successvey re-
ceiyod nn tue sSago OF the ac OF 1870 above etefrd
ANIMAL salary, u be paid by the CONTROLLER,
repedDg any provision OF law inconsistent there
with.
TBo plaintiff claims that tho salary o, $4,000. Fixed
pursuant to the Get OF 1910. superseded Oay $500 or
tue $1,000 previously received by him. because the bal
ance $3.50 not received as salary, but as com
pensaOB In lieu OF costs, fees and charges IN certain
proceedings and the statute allowing bm sich COM
pensatOn not inconsistent with the Later statute
providing for fixed salary. Whether the $3.50 DO
called allowance IN lieu Of certain fees or c0Dpen-
saon addition the regular salary Of the oicer 70
whom It was paid, il In effect and fact = salary.
Although given Ia lieu OF fees for CERTAIN scry.ces,I
was not dependent upon suCh services. being piyaDe
WHITTIER tue Counsel to the Corporation were ealled
upon the services not IL was conlpensa-
ton attaching TO tile oil re, and not to the service Tao
service, II rendered. Ike all the other duties
performed by the Counsel 10 the Corporation xcep'
legal assistance Supervisory performed Tor ta
city, and the whole compensation OF the Office was pali
from the CITY Treasury When therefore, The act OF 1910
was passed, authorizing tue Controller 10 TX salary
the officer which might be, and was LARGELY ~ eK
Of the stated compensation then received ny nun
from all sources aud Inconsistent Provisions OF raw
were repealed, intention was clearly 10 establish
which should supersede all other GUAR
statute annual allowances attaching " Iho onSe'
and payable from tho City Treasury.
Demurrer OyerruIed and Judgment thereon Ior az
PENDANTS with A. Odkcy Han aPpsaiou iot euo
plaintiffs ID. j. Dean for the city.