The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-01-07
Those UNPAID WAGES.
The City's Appeals Argued
Before Judge Lippin-
colt = Law ON
Both Sides.

Argument was heard by Judge Lippin-
colt yesterday, on the appeal cases OF the
city laborers whom Mayor w anser re-
fused to pay because of the doubt OF the
legality of their employment. The facts
of the case were submitted in the morn
ing. as The JERSEY CITY NEWS published
yesterday. and argument took place In
the afternoon.
The lawyers present were Corporation
Attorney HIdspeth, for the city; and
Messrs. Wills. Dixon and Rowe for the
men. It was agreed that three cases.
each involving different point, should
be argued, and that the result
should apply to the other cases. The
cases selected were those of Mathew T.
Noonan, employed to work on repairs TO
pipes by w. r. Cook and Stephen
Yoe, Street and Water Commissioners,
rs committee to whom Judge Puseer
rendered judgment; Burke. one of the
men in whose favor Judge Puster refused
to decide. and who. through Counsellor
Dixon, appealed, and the convicted bal
lot box suffers cases. In all of the cases
except those like Burke's the appeal was
taken by the city.
NO RESOLUTION.
Corporation Attorney Hudspeth con-
tended that the employment OF the up
paid workingmen was illegal. because it
had been done without resolution of
the Board of Street and Water Com
missioners. He claimed that. only in cases
of exigency could tae city employ men Off
hand, through committee. Employ
menI In the cases In court, he said, could
not be made in excess of the appropria-
tions. Mr.. Hudspeth cited a number of
cases that he claimed settled this point.
and then said that there should be a
formal employment by resolution
adopted by the Board.
to. = fSrs
meng Distinguished between employment
of men by slip, that is by a letter from q
Commissioner directing him to go to
work, and by committee to whom
power mad been delegated by the Board
to appoint. He also distinguished between
contracts for services to be rendered and
or material to be furnished. admitting
that in the latter class of cases, if the
material was used by the city, 1T :nust be
paid for. He also admitted that city
employees subsequently to the Der
formances of services had been
indicted and that was Nc legal ground for
a veto Of their salaries. This argument
did not apply TO Noonan and some others,
but to some of the unpaid men. In his
contention, Mr.. Hudspeth quoted much
law and made a good case Tor the city.
THE MEMS SIDE OF IT.
The lawyers for the men claimed that
the right of recovery depended first upon
original employment by committees to
whom power had been delegated by the
Board in some way, as appeared by the
state of the case, and was legal in its in
was not legal, the same had been ratified
by city authorities by making previous
payments without protects. leading to the
belief that committees had authority to
appoit. and also by the passing of pay
rolls, and the concurrence of the Board
of Finance, and also some cases by the
drawing and presentation of warrants to
of the warrants.
1t was further contended by counsel
that proof of exigeucy was not necessary
so long as the time of employment was
one recognized as exigent by ap-
propriations Of money TO do the
work. such as repairs on pipes.
The lawyers further claimed that
technical defect in an original employ
ment should not defeat a recovery, pro-
vided there had been such an act by the
Municipality as constituted notification,
and contended that the only question for
the Court to determine was whether work
had been done in an honest belief of the
authority of the committee to authorize
it, at a time when there was an appro-
priation in the treasury for the purpose,
and employment had been afterwards
notified.
The principal involved, 1t was claimed,
was the one that when a man had re-
ceived benefit knowingly without pro-
test and had done any Affirmative act
showing the intention to adopt
the benefit he was estopped
in law from setting up that
he did not make the original contract and
that the same rule applied to munich
palities as to private individuals, pro-
vided the WORK was of a character author
lied to be performed by the charter.
Judge Lippincott reserved his decision.