The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-06-14
THE COURTS.
The Laws Applicable to the
Dock Department.. \
IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE VAN BRUSY
PcAitsnt and Impatient Dispensers Of Beer
Saloon Theairitals and Music. .a.. "
DIvORCNG MUSIC AND BEER

II suit disposed OF bsfore Judge Van Bruas In
supreme Court, Circuit yesterday, an Important
victory was won Tor the city and an important do
csion announced In relation TO the laws governing the
action Of the Dock Department. The suit brought
against the city BY James Bgier balance
due him tor timber furnished TO the Dock Department
The department made contract With the plaintiff TO
furnish such quantities Of timber might be required
Daring the year from August. 1873, to August, 1874
Under that contract large Quantities Of timber were
furnished bills therefor paid by the city fto tine
70 time until the fall OF 1874, when the last bill
handed in for $4,000 AZ that time the Finance
Department objected TO paying the bill in full.
but paid $4,000 on account, leaving m
upliquidased balance Of $4,000 for which
sum the present suit brought. The city defended
the action on the ground that the contract was not
legal and, even II legal the plaintiff had not complied
with It's terms shat he had not furnished timber Of
sne width and length called for By ths specifications
which formed psrt OF the contract UpoA the trial,
winch lasted over week and has already boon briefly
pot,csd in the HxEALp, after putting In certinsd bills
bhe plaintiff introduced evidence with Wow 10 show
Atrmativsy that he had complied with the terms or
lhe contract ~ 10 length and width. On this point
pisnnn himself was the sole witness, ana was SUBJ
Iected to cross-examinaton by Cor poration Counsel
Whitney, which continued during three and hall days
In the course that great many In
spectors' measurements and invoices OF lumber
shipped were identlncd by him as covering items in
ahe bills suit The measurements contained IN tho
certificates and invoices showed that IN all but SIX In
stances the timber described therein 10 tho
contract size IN length and width. Upon tnsse facts
and tho further ground Of the sgHlIty OF the
!rac, Mr.: Whitney moved =. the close Of The plain
plaint Upon this motion he commended tnst plain-
inns own evidence showed that no had not complied
with the forms oil his contract In deciding the
ton, Judge Van Brunt said he eliminated from The
case tho latter grounds entirely. This he did partly
tsk. a..ps 49,
was question for the jury, and on the furthcr
ground that remarks made by MIN IN the course Of
tho amount Of testimony necessary 70 prove sub
etantel compliance with The contract Upon she other
greund.nat Of The iiesality Of the Con.rsc he Do.
hvoreu an extended oral opinion, Ia the course Of
which he commented upon Tho frequent changes which
were made a. Albany in tho laws regulating tho govern
ment Of she various departments OF the city, the result
OF which was. he said, that sooner wus The intor
probation or charter Or othor law settled By a.
Proceeding ID his opinion he held that
In purchasing tho materials sued upon the
e on s .nS Dock ~
passed In 1870 and amended IN 1871; that although
under that law they could, BY -lths VOTE dcude
20 any portion al the work oil constructing the new
piers otherwise than by contract, attn AZ ait was IN
evidsscs IN the case from Mr.. Westervet, who mad
beeh pat on The stand by paiptin shat they had de-
c,Aed 20 do the labor only by days work, the CON-
ciusion inevitable purchasing OF materials
on lis provisions part,c ularly the tact that
the proposals upon which u Was founded contained no
statement Of quantities required, and therefore the
bidding was not fairly competitive bat the Unbalanced
budding, " by means OF which SO many frauduept con-
tracts havc been foised upon the State and city he
stated that the contract reality contract
~ oil rs ~ did not bind the cyto call for anyhpR,
and Bglor iaiisd 70 furnish anything when required
II left the cty romcdiess against him, except the
sevent OF there happening the moment be some
Thing due him account OF deliveries already made.
On tEeso grounds he dismissed The complaint The
paintih WAS represented IN the action ny ex-Judge
Fanchcr and Mr. Dexter A. HAWKINS. and the city by
Corporation Counsel Whitney and two OF his assist
AM r T. HI II I'M DR
1t was learned IRON some OF the gentlemen
Interested In the matter on the para VI the CITY that
The Dock Department instead Of those the EngI-
hcef's Department and that sucCccdsng contract
rrAwn ny tho latter conforms IN a respects TO The
.provisons OF tho law. The thus summarliy
Killed, although financially speaking perhaps soma
what ato IN dying, made IN the course Of carry
Ing out the new plan Tor improving Tho water front,
The ulainllG the case has already cni