National Republican., 1878-11-12
THE Txx-LIsT PUBLICATION.
Mr.. Murtagh Entitled to Recover . Fsir
Price for the Work Performed.

Price for the Work Performed.
The case Of william j. Murtagh against the Dis.
trict Of Columbia was decided by the court In
banc yesterday, and new trial granted based on
the correctness Of two OF the exceptions taken at
the trial In the Circuit Court The plaintiff entered
intdsa contract with the District government Feb
ruary 5, 1875, by which he undertook to publish
the annual taxst for 81 per line for two insertions
week for four weeks In THE NATIONAL REPuBli.
CAN. This agreement was made under the set OF
Congress, which directed that the publication
S9 Pc se @ NV wSGn y n e b gpnbcs III
tion was made Congress passed another act, ex'
tending the time to June I, aud provided that the
publication should be twice week for two weeks.
The Commissioners served notice upon the plain.
til. after the four publications had been made,
that they would pay only for that number, and IL
any more were issued II would be at his risk. Mr..
Murtagh maintained that the contract was made In
good hith that four issues were out tifth ready,
another in the oourse Of readiness and that he had
gone to great expense for material, labor and pa
per, aud should continue the publication.
He argued that II the contract was binding upon
him on the one side It surely must be upon tho
Commissioners as the other party. The Commis,
siOners paid for the four Issues, which was received
on account and suit entered TO recover the balance,
but the Jury returned verdict favorable to the
District Justice Macarthur delivered the opinion
OF the court, which was tn the effect that the con.
tract being unperinrmed at the time the second act
IN relation TO publishing the taN.list was passed BY
Congress, II not only incidentally hut practically
annulled the contract As Congress had exclusive
leRlShtNe CONltNl over tne DlstTlCt, u was CUM
petent for II 10 alter tho tRX.law whenever II saw
fl, aud Mr MurtaRh, or any other person, entering
Into the contract did II with the knowledge that
Congress possessed such power. There was nothing
due Mr. Murtagh at the time tho second Congress
sionnl net was passed and he had the right TO re-
fI.e 10 proceed under Il II he chose to do So II Is
conceded that no special contract was entered into
under this statute, aud majority Of the court are
.! the Opiulon that the work Is 10 be considered as
being done without any special agreement and the
plaintiff cuttlcd to recover what II Is fairly and
reasonably worth.
on the trial testimony was produced to show the
cost OF COmpO. lion In iOboiices at that time TO
which the plaintiff excepted. The law required
that the taN.list shpuld be published IN n daily
newspaper, aud, consequently, what II might have
been done for In a JobOffice was not subject for
proof or consideration in the case; and the exccp-
tiOn To such evidence was well taken and sustained.
Then, again. the exception to the testimony rs To
what the Critic would have published 1t for
In the succeeding year Is sustained. The fact was
not what II could he printed for any other time,
but that year alone. On these Two exceptions new
trial was granted.
The Ouly question now involved Is whether or not
n G'ir price has been paid for the work as news
paper publication.