New-York tribune., 1902-09-05

BRIEFS IN CROKER CASE.
COUNSEL FOR COMMISSIONER AND
FIRE CHIEF FILE ARGUMENTS.

Assistant Corporation Counsel Connolly yester- |
day filed his brief in reply TO the points raised
in the argument on Tuesday before Justice Bis !
chor on the application of ex-Assistant Corpora
ton Counsel John J. Delany for the punishment
OF Fire Commissioner Thomas Sturgis for con-
tempt OF court in refusing TO obey the Tnandamus
issued by Justice Ernest Hall directing that the
Fire Commissioner restore Fire Chief croker 10
his office and to the command OF the uniformed
force
Mr.. Connoly's main point in answer to the
charge that Mr. Sturgis is in contempt is that the
Fire Commissioner cannot be justly punished be-
cause he did have time to file his notice OF
appeal earlier.
He cites the Gilroy case, in which an order was
made directing the payment Of an award TO d
claimant In aqueduct proceedings, and an appear
taken. and Justice Willard Bartlett dehieu
the applicat to punish for contempt in refusing
to pay the award pending appeal on the ground
that ''the real appellant is a domestic municipal
corporation. and appeal therefore oPerateu
as stay under Section L5l4 of the Code
Mr. Connoly's second point is that the Fire Com
missioner was not in contempt because he coulu
not take an appeal iustantaneoCsy- He argues
that the application to punish for contempt was
premature because it made before Septern-
Der 2 the time fixed for return to be made on
the writ ana he ends by declaring that II the
contentious which he makes and the authorizes
which he cites DO not induce the Court 10 oeHS
the motion to punish for contempt, STILL the mo-
ton must be denied because the Fire CoiIiiiiS-
soner was acting in good faith in accordance WIN
the advice of the Corporation Counsel
The brief of ex-Assistant District Attorney John
J. Delany, counsel for Chief Croker, holds thdt the
decision Of Justice Hall and the two days notice
given before the order signed was sunlcleht
notice the respondent should be ready TO per
feet his appeal and to get stay immedlateiy On On
the granting of order, or obey 1t tcrtn"ltn as
directed. The of the noJice OF aPpedI oIu
no. suspend the operation Of the writ ana me ee
fendant was in contempt Tor MS TeluSdl 70 oDeS.
Mr. Deiany contends, and also that aF' Stui6.s
is entitled the benefits OF Section lSls on
which the Corporation Counsel relies, because ne
is domestic municipal corporation, ana can
not be regarded of the city. IN so TAR
his act of suspending Chief croker is concerned
for the reason that act was not lncluded
within the scope of his authority as Fire COM
missioner.
He declares. too that that section does not sus-
pend the operation of a writ of peremptofy man
damus or service of notice Of appeal ana noo
that a stay could be had by the Commissioner only
on order ade by the judge of the court
MT. DFlany denies the dpphcatoH OF Lhe cases
cited by his opponent and quotes decisions IN sup
port of his view Among the cases is that In W6ich
Bridge Commissioner Shea was ad!udged sullty OF
contempt for failure to obey an in1uncti91 from
which he had appealed. relying on Section l3li, tle
Appellate Division holding that the appeal di1
absolVe the defendant from the duty or obedf-
ence to the mandate"