The New York herald., 1876-09-20
HERALD WEDNESDAY,

anerward circular was issued by William NJ Tweed,
Commissioner OF Public Works, calling for sealed pro-
posais for the work from l35th street TO lSsth
street. that Fifth extends beyond l3sh street
TO Harlem RIVER distance OF over 900 feet to l43d
street. winch latter portion not included in the
proposals issued by Tweed has It been guttercd
and tagged; that In this circular Tweed inserted
,s an ha, sSe estimate Sa
L. cubic yards OF earth would be required TO be
excavaed whereas only 400 were required that only
l5, 600 YARDS OF filling would be required, whereas
over 80 yards required that proposals were
made such false estimates and that one Owens was
declared the lowest bidder with whom contract was
made; that this award fraudulent. because first,
the contract awarded 10 the highest bidder and
creased $1,000; second, that the greater part OF
the Improvement directed, VIZ, from loSth ST. 10 Har
lem River, has never been performed nor contracted
for, estimated and third, that assessment
has imposed before the Improvement authorizing
the has been completed but the part
thereof remains untouched, and when tho expense
thereof cannot be ascerained, and fourth that the
have been assessed more than the half their
assessed valuation the being s27. .o00 The
cy opposed petition the ground that the whole
matter mad been decided by the Court OF Appeals ia
similar Judge Wcstbrook took the papers, re-
serving his decision
HANGING OUT HIS BANNERS.
John H. Jcssup claims that several years since
when Matthew Patton was being by his friends Tor
member OF Assembly he furnished election banners Of
the value of $4oO, for which he seeks to hold Mr.
against him in tho Marine Court. Since the time Of
its commencement the suit has occasionally become
considerably en.angled. First, the original attorney
is said to neglected its prosecution, and another
attorney had to be substituted but this latter Attorney
although admitting he had been retained by the de-
fendnnt seems have been ignorant OF his substitu
ton attorney moro than six months ngo. Ycser-
day, the case was set down for trial before Judge
McAdam, plaintiffs counsel understood II,
pcremptorily, by previous order OF Judge
sheridan AS to the peremptory part, counsel for de-
fendant claimed thcre was misunderstanding This
tangle having been unraveled by Judge Sheridan
suited in what the plaintiffs counsel supposed TO DO
order that tho proceed persmptorily on the
goth inst But when this order drawn and sub
mtted to the other side there again misundcr
standing counse, for defendant asserting that he did
not consent any order. but merely that argument
proceed forthwith TO what order, # any, should be
made Tho Court then directed that such argument
should proceed, whercupon defendants counsel stated
that after the papers had come into his hands, which
but recently he discovered that defendants
therein alleged payment OF all the services
which plaintiff had rendered on his behalf, whereas
he recollected that he bad ordered Of plaintiff
about $40 worth of work. which still due, but the
balance he denied having ordered, and desired an op
Counsel also desired that plaintiffs counsel furnish him
with bill OF particulars IA to the number OF banners
hc hung out, where he hung them and what their
value This motion was opposed on the part OF the
plaintiff especially that portion which asked Tor bill
of particulars, the ground that the original answer
did put the items In issue and the parties who put
the banners in position now, probably, scattered
10 the four winds heaven. The judge OF opinion
plaintiff would have 10 prove the items Of his claim
with or without bill OF particulars, and therefore
dered it. He directed that defendants counsel
have u reasonable time to serve his amended
DECISION AGAINST THE CITY.
John Schryer sued the city to recover the sum Of
So 600 us assignee of contract for building school
house in tho Tonth ward. Plaintiffs assgnor, prior
the assignment had drawn order ON the Board of
Education for 81, 200 payable when prior instament
was duo the plaintiffs assgnor On the first trial, be-
fore jury directed by the Court for the
CITY, This the General Term reversed. On the second
trial. before jury verdict directed by the Court
Tor the plaintiff less the Of the 81, 200 order
interest Plaintiff again appealed 10 the General
Term, where tho judgment in favor OF the plaintiff
was increased the full amount claimed by him.
and increased the judgment was affirmed. The
defendant then appealed to the Court OF Appeals
wherein Mr. l. Stetson argued The of the city,
taking tho position that the order OF the plaintiffs
assignor obligatory on the city. Mr.. ID. NJ. Porter
argued the Of TIE plaintiff, taking the contrary
position, and that the Board OF Education a
stranger and tho debtor.
the drawing an order though it upon partic,-
lar fund.- II the party whom 1t Is drawn is not the
debtor, is assignment of the fund and IS in
vald and therefore the order should not be allowed
the defendant the defendant cannot be compelled TO
pay it, The Court OF Appeals yesterday affirmed the
judgment IN plaintiffs favor.