, 1879-03-25
TIE COURTS.
Opinion In a Hyde Park Assess
ment Case.
Record OF Judgments, New Suits,
Divorces, Etc.

puIElOt1, HAT IN Tic case Ot the Village U{ Iylp
Park ". II. F. Waite aml nil,cFs, wl!cl, vns To
net aside spccfn1 assessment. The Viilagc of
Hyde Park, Under MI ordinance OF Jan. 4, 1870,
levied special assessment for 1aytng ntnl cnn-
ntruct!ng II watcr.pli'o along one OF lis strccls.
Judgment. however, was u, confirmation on the
solo ground that 2s1llf feet Of cast.iron wafer
pipe sappfy-ptpe, mentioned In The ordinance,
had bccn laid prior to ile pAssage Of Tie or.
dnancc. a new nsscessnent was then made in
December following, rccting tlIc former ono
a,a ordering new assessment nn tho de-
liNpucnt property for the ninount OF the
deficiency. Numerous objections we're made
10 the confirmation, only one Ut which wis dc-
ci,'cd by lie Appellate Court. That was that
there hal already been an assessment for the
iltntica! work md the confirmation of that a..
scssu,cnt refused, wherein judgment was final
and conclusive IN The case. Tile vliugc, there
fore, was established from proceeding, except on
on the record Of the former proceeding ami
Judgment, from which II shuu'd lave takrn an
appeal. The County Court uverru1cd The ob}cc-
iinn, but The Superior Court sustained It.
TlIe Appellate Court held tlmt the Judgment
Of the Superior Court was erroneous. Tile
argument IN support Of u was based on The as
sumption that the issue In The County Court
on the application fer confirmation Of
tile FIRST assessment wns on tho power OF the
village TO ASSESS for MI improvement III mart
naic before the pnssaGe Of the ordinance, nini
the position taken WIS that the ftnlIig fnT the
ohjeGturs IN TINT fsstc, whether right wrong,
must bc conclusive against my attempt tu as
sess for tint Improvement nutl It should bo re-
yerscd III direct proceeding. There was In the
record no sufficient warrant for the assumption.
The ordinance descriled the Improvement for
which It directed the assessment ns certain p!pc
to b. laid, while the proof showed that portion
or ihat for whIcl, Tie assessment WA made Ind
been laid. On that ground alono the Court
refused tile confirmation, but whether
It ndjudgrtl US matter nj Inv that
tic yi,ln5e ind no power TO assess for sucl, an
Improvement wns ,iot wbnt was described In tic
oriIna1.rc tts1cr which tfE assessment was
made, did not appear. The former wns not to
ju Rssu,nc.l, cst,uciaily as ilc Slpre,,o Court
had declared the law to 10 tho contrary. II tic
1nttcr, the tnr1u!ty WIS tlrct! by thu Inst oF0l-
nance. The ISSUE usi tic application for con-
tirlnnton of the first assessment wns on tlc
suillc!clcy Of tile !|rst ordinance. ntti OF the
prorrr.lInEs under 1t, rs on tho application for
confirmation OF the new assessment It wns on
The sntiicener ot ti!c lI:t ordinances H nl the
proceedings Under It. While the lust ortllnanco
was thouEht to be- madc necessary
as authority for tho new assessment It was
wholly independent OF the first, AliI tile pro.
cccdngs undcs II wcrc dc Hoyo on to The OBJ
tcctors. In neither case WIS the question OF
HDWeF lHfUIfCut A1ltt licIitV tH0 uH
first application could not be bar to tho
sccond. The judgment Of the Superior Court
would therefore be rcvcrscd ana the case re-
mnMdcd.
4 MILK-DEALKlt IN TROUBLE.
Patrick D, IIaycs ,5lcd bill Yesterday against
Edward Wcct,, u former empluyc, tn prryeut
hin from Interfering with his business. Conf
putnant states tint In February, 1878, hs cn-
Eagc,! Welcn to ruf, one ~ hss tf'l!K.rohtea M On
thr Ncst sue: aEfGel,,E TO Gl'G n,i fs" tnonth
n1Hl board. Welch ieit tne lotl inst.; anu t!c
next lny sct up route 1or n!lase,tt @ any, went 10
c1lnnla,nHnls gnsIos T. I. t sou ''iGn' s cI',.-
planant hnq ialleti aE.i ne nay tANeh il!s pIate
ana wonlu fcuGchl t,ic tekets. ~ ttls
tnenns ~ staflcn VIII . eoou; business,
Mnetl t9 naycS usssust. !M lallef
now ASKS tof nm ih5unel.oh IT, pIevent INA over
cnletl.lslt,E tso. ~ lah ..a - .nstoIi
GTs Or us'liE my t!eke.s or soiIect!lE my money
tue nm; Me nl,1nGt'.Ils , MsIc !sseu us ask
e., aia ar. MeaeH W. i, " reqnSs'ca 10 1euse
from Tue ousllcss ioF t''e p'escht'
ntvoRcss.
Mary T.. Barnett htesl DILL yesterday toT al.
yreo i5n', lanes 'asoe''' o'' 'nc seo"nu oi ''a-
bltnhl asu1IKEnhEse. t;r .su
HchEIctta Nolifta9ts'l atSu asRe' ~, WI u