The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1884-08-31

Ordinarily. special meetings OF the Board OF
Aldermen are not called except on twenty-four
hours notice to the members. But In 1880 the
Aldermen then in ONCE provided for special
meetings on shoStes notice by passing the
BosrG shall he esd "sI.. 70 soa1. notes
and sn, cay
% sspae Meeting a zig BSssd ~ sha'
period q time 'hsn twenty t.nr hour: sash msstns
s%s stsa :ss:a y 3, Sc" m:%ss?:
signing Of the cali.
The members Of the Board who were interest
over the Mayors veto determined that an
emergency had arisen which neeessi1ated .
oss ea was ysI The
orrIcE o, InE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
:%sS' sss: So s sSa"s
sa. ;ss s e City : c
ssy S Sio
Tho promoters Of the meeting at once went
e work to 3otan the q eighteen
fn are fst5sa 6n ks1neX Charles bSHpssy
iSothman,, /, A., FulleTafi. Henry I. saylss.
Waite. Robert L. De Lacy. and, Chas;; II. Reilly.
rxomay GerN Of ' she bosr n esp
cTty Hail immsdistsiy, wGsn Capt. Twom aes
mee " s eso $ eH 1877 he sn
81 hs cal wsTS then on hand Notices were
lie call "a I'VE WIZ Rrf s asd
S %ia$ 55SSs ss j v;ss$I
waiting for their six colleagues. the eighteen
Aldermen met in the ehapber. .
moving that In the abssnce 'e Of fresdsnt KIRK
Alderman Waite be made temporary Chairman.
sea s crN reSd the cali
for the meeting. and then Chairman Waite
tSat bd read tsrk AND
Bartlett q the supreme Court and duly nied
o Jehn H. Iyas s snd
yscatIns the Injunction granted .by. Justice
ia also S HE
SsSs nat Fl The Hs ! nnn shaa ~
When Clerk .Moloney had. finilhed reading.
Alderman Jaehne moved that the Broadway
Mscs S.c IL: 4o :: ps $
eighteen Aldermen voted in the Affirmative:
sss the st
vote. and was therefore carried
The resolution giving permission to the Com
merciul Cable Company to lay wires In tubes
over the Mayors veto. the eighteen Aldermen
Tho Aldermen smiled! and winkeed at one an
other after the two resolutions had been passed.
Pearson moved that Superintendent Toucey OF
tho New York Central and Hudson River Rail-
r"sa be to Issue b no ere
Aldermen.
,m mhs mooH Tss married but there
eighteen Aldermen adjourned.
Restitution passed b. the Aldermen. came to tie
City Hall after the Board had adjourned. He
ss . s ss G Ssu s The Ms sp.sna had
have voted to Pass the resolution over Tie
dermen who voted for IT,"
the absent Aldermen. except aldermen Grant It,
voted for !hs resolution had they been present.
T Mayer IS not 81 nesssssy ad s zion
that S GaS the
MS tho eso bad Svep the
ss,ssS 81 With liz city Might
:" have received several letters from respon-
sible persons and companies. the Mayor con-
Tns GsDs Ss
some OF these Communications to the Alder
men. and personally told several Of the Alder
nsn thss 100000 had been onerod for tho
The Mayor added that any taxpayer could
eiPt ehe ROAD and hen the he Whole ma.sr could
BE- reviewed BY the courts He thought, also
propriety OF building the road might hesitate
10 approve such projeS:: and that the Court
under the clrcumstaneos. 4 shouidbe favorable.
+. H. Lacombe the Corporation Counsel.
! said OF the injunction suit:
Yesterday y James Y
ssSsiaas !Ss ini%ss,ion McSa 90 Sonasy II
a sS'd hs 1 asked there would
a co .ss
If. eSu tn" S ws s ss OF e. nye
"a e. e. :.
.i ;;s ~ % \; r.
%ss !" sns ERA
asfi'y % y
nsS N. %. s
IL such Ills original plan Il wa. an ingenious
pr NY q sas. .sst S Of
e e decision %sH:s OF e. oa Th
case In WHICH he party to be heard In his own sup
sn A. = "a ssas sa' ss
duty hsd the suit should most siny
discharged although BY 30 doing must" as Mr. Lyddy
sreported 70 have said, take my place as endorsing
robbery OF the city"
Al tie time received che papers In the Injunction
suit committee OF the Board Of Aldermen, headed By
Mr. Kirk the Pre- sdent waited upon and asked ~,
associate Mr. Luke Cozhns counsel for the HOARD
OF Aldermen upon the argument then conmnncat.t
with MIR. Cozans. and had the argument proceeded, III
would have appeared with me thereon.
have no, doubt that the Court would have henrt
counsel for the railroad company upon the motion a
smieus suris and DO not see how ply one could hay
permanent without the plaintiffs satisfy the Court
| after Argument that he was entitled to the rehe
| sought for.
| on the affidavit Of Lawyer James NJ Lyddy
who obtained the Injunction. Mr.. Lyddy mad!
and he consented to a vacation OF the injunc
tion. Mr.. Lyddy is represented as saving TIA
| ke had discovered that tho grounds on Whicl
the Injunction was obtained were not valid AMI
that It was certain to be dismissed. and tina
his object In getting 1t dissolved was to max