The Sunday tatler and Jersey City express. (Jersey City, N.J.) 1883-1886, 1885-08-02

appeared, for the first time, in the final
certificate Of the engineer. The defend
ants are ready TO prove that the stone
claimed was never furnished, and further,
that Elmendorf did not even furnish the
quantity of stone for which he has been
already paid. In the palmiest days of the
Greenville Commissioners, this not over
modest contractor charged but fifty dollars
apiece for receiving basins; yet the Referee
sympathetically increases this item to fifty
three dollars. The defendants can prove
that these basins are comparatively WORTH
less. The other items of the plaintiffs
claim for extra work have no foundation in
fact, forming but incidentals in piece of
jobbery the patterns of which have brought
bankruptcy to the gates Of the fairest of our
municipalities. These facts are susceptible
Of proof, and the defendants submit that it
would work gross injustice to them if
they are concluded by the fact that the
Referee did not seek further enlighten-
ment upon the subject before making his
report"
Judge Reed overruled all the offers
made by Mr.. McDermott to prove that the
work and materials allowed for by the
Referee were not furnished and said 81
will rule that this amount (the amount re-
ported by the Referee as due Elmendorf)
is in the nature Of judgment, and that
the defence which would have gone to the
proceedings before the Referee can not be
interposed now"
Mr.. McDermott then moved to nonsuit
the plaintiff on the ground that the act of
the Legislature under which he sought a
recovery was in contravention of the Con-
stitution of the State of New Jersey, which
provides that the object of each act shall
be expressed in its title.
Judge Reed overruled this motion and
ordered judgment entered in favor of the
plaintiff for the sum of $25, 781. 80. Mr..
McDermott obtained rule to show cause
why new trial should not be granted.
and argument was had at the November
Term, 1880, of the Supreme Court. before
Chief Justice BeaseIy and Justices Dali
rimple and Woodruff Mr.. Linn appearing
for the plaintiff ami Mr. McDermott for
the city. A new trial was ordered and had
before Judge Knapp at the Court House,
on the 18th of September, 1888 At this
trial Mr.. McDermott renewed his offer to
| prove that the Referee was wrong in his
conclusions bsrt> tbs-ot feN Vas efrufed
Judge Knapp holding that the city had
lost the benefit of what it might have
proved before the Referee and was con-
Guided by the latter's report. The Judge
| further declined to hold the act unconsti-
tutional, and judgment was again entered
] against the city, Mr. McDermott then
carried the case to the Court of Errors and
Appeals, where, on Saturday last, the iudc-
ment in favor of the plaintiff, now amount
| ing to over $780, 900, was reversed and iudg-
ment entered in favor of the city. In the
| argument before the Court of Errors. Mr..
Linn was reinforced by Mr.. Cortlandt
Parker.
81 must say, said Judge McDermott to
a TArrLER yesterday, ssthat I am greatly
| pleased with the result in the Elmendorf
case At the time it came to my hands the
Board of Finance and Taxation desired to
employ extra counsel, the Corporation
Counsel Of the city being precluded from
appearing on behalf of the city by reason
| of the fact that he had been counsel fol
one of the parties in the case of Schumm
vs.. Seymour. Confident that my objection
to the constitutionality of the act was well
taken, | dissuaded the board from its
| proposed action and have since conducted
the case. When l resigned the office OF
Corporation Attorney, in 1883, retained
the case in my hands and have carried il
on since that date without compensation
/ do not intend to charge the city anything
for my services, as | feel fully repaid BY
the victory of II point whose virtue have
maintained for over six years.