The New York herald., 1879-02-25


one-tonrth one-third would probably be
nearer the marx). Observation-Disclosures. 485 A
Grand total. So, ,427 10
Thus we have the humiiating, the degrading spec
tacle OF vulgar and ilterate Official the represen-
tative OF the power centred in the criminal classes
and the substrata of Brooklyn society, literally rob
bing the public to the tune of about $1,000 year.
for which it gets no return whatever in services or
otherwise and on the other hand class of men
who talk much and loudly OF the Independence Of
the Bar and the honor and integrity of their profess
sion tamely submitting to the imposition.
IL. beg to anticipate question which might
naturally suggest itself to the mind of Your Excel
the courts for redress and seek to Compel the clerk
by mandanus to file the note of issue without
feey To which give but one of several answers
viZ my past experience i'll that line convinccs
of the utter futiity of such proceedings and that,
beside being waste of time labor and vitality, it
would but furnish food for derisve laughter on the
part of Delmar and his sympathizers, the sequel
will show. l recovered judgment. few years ago.
for some 1852 in the Justices Court, Brooklyn. held
by N. b. Morse Jr, Justice, who attempted
to extort from me SO so. to which he
not entitled by law. and refused me tran
script Of the Judgment. Justice Gilbert, of the
Supreme Court issued peremptory mandamus re-
Quring him to give the transcript-he disobeyed the
mandamus. and despite many efforts and much
to yield obedience. The consequence that Morse
had his laugh. and /. rather than submit to extor-
tion lost irrevocably all benefit of my Judgment for
1852, the debtor having left for parts unknown. I
subseQ uently demanded from his successor Justice
E. W. Bloom transcript. and offered to pay second
fee, showing him at same time section 961 Of the
Code of Civil Procedure, rendering him liable for
misdemeanor in case of his refusal but he had the
audacity to tell me, after consultation with Morse,
that he would prefer to be mandamused" rather
than yield have never yet got the transcript.
IL. Your petitioner further alleges that the rev.
enue thus derived by the Clerk OF the County of
Kings Is neither more less than public plumber.
There is no law OF the State OF New York authorz-
ing. directly or by implication the demand or
ceptance OF this fee OF seventy-fve cents. II had
its origin in the old fee bill of 1S40, follows:-
Every cause noticed for trial or argument, and
enf anne on tive IN. ceDfa
for services upon the trial of cause, to be paid by
the party moving the trial. fifty cents Il Edm.
r. ST. 6S8. But the old fee bill far it relates to
the Clerks foes, is repealed-l6 How, 225 and the
Clerk is not entitled to separate fee for filing
The Clerk in placing the the calendar It's
without compensation Denton vs. Sheldon, Code r.,
l34 because the Code declares section 3l2 He shall
receive no fee for any services whatever in civil
actior except 81 trial fee 81 entering Of judgment
and five cents per tolio for copies of papers, &c.
This section of the code has received the following
authoritative judicial construction THE trial fee
of 81 obviously intended to pay the Clerk for the
ordinary miscellaneous services required of him in
rendered in the court on the trial. and must embrace
the service OF putting the the calendar
People Supervisors. Is How 225.
Is. have examined very carefully Edmunds r. s.
and all the volumes OF session laws passed since the
last volume Of Edmunds, and am unable to find q
single trace OF authority for such q fee.
charge, therefore, under the soemnity OF an oath
as follows:-
l. That John Delmar Clerk of County of Kings
extorted under color os his Office, from your petit
toner. William Beggs the sum of seventy-fve cents
in the month of October 1878. fee lawfully pay
able to him. said Delmar ding III his Office note
Of issue to have placed the calandar of the Kings
County Court for trial wherein said William
Beggs was plaintiff and James Armitage dcfen-
dant.
q That said John Delmar extorted, under color of
his office. from said William Beggs. the 18th day
of November last. a further sum Of seventy-five
cents as fee lawfully payable to him. said Demar
on like filing.
s. That said John Delmar extorted, under color of
his office frOIu eaid William no
Of December last. further sum of soventy-6ve
cents, as fee lawfully payable to him, said Delmar.
L. That said John Delmar extorted. under color of
his Office, from said William Beggs about the
22d day Of January. 1870, further of seventy
hve cents ~ fso lawfully payable to him, said Del
5. That said John Delnar extorted. under color of
his office, from said William Bcggs the oath day
OF December last further sum of soventy-ive
a. fee lawfully payable to him. said Delmar, the
filing in his office Of note Of issue for placing on
cause wherein said William Beggs was plaintiff and
Aphonse Friedrich defendant.
And submit under oath as folows:-
!. That said acts of extortion by said Delmar are
absolutely incompatible with the faithful discharge
of the duties OF his Office Clerk of the County of
Kings and ex onicio Clerk of the Supreme Court.
2. That such acts Of extorton by said Dslmar in
volve violation of his oath of Office; and
3. That they constitute such malfeasance in Office
as to warrant his removal therefrom.
Your petitioner therefor prays that your Excel
lency Chief Executive Of the State will exercise
your prerogative and remove said John Delmar from
petitioner will ever pray. WILLIAM BEGt;s. %s yS"'
City and County Of Ncr York ss.-wllliam Beggs,
being duly swor1 says he Is the petitioner above
and matters therein stated true of his own
knowledge. except ss to those matters therein stated
to be alleged upon information and belief and AS to
WILLIAM BEGGs.
Sworn to before me this 24th day of February 1873
JOHN l.. sLISGERLASp, Notary Public. county Of
New York.