Case Name: The People ex rel. Ellen Hawley agt. Abraham L. Earle, auditor of accounts; Same agt. Andrew H. Green, comptroller of the city of New York
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1873-09
Citations: 46 How. Pr. 267
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. Ellen Hawley agt. Abraham L. Earle, auditor of accounts. Same agt. Andrew H. Green, comptroller of the city of New York.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT.
The People ex rel. Ellen Hawley agt. Abraham L. Earle, auditor of accounts. Same agt. Andrew H. Green, comptroller of the city of New York.
First Judicial District, New Fork,
September, Special Term, 1873.
Where a balance of a claim against the county of New York, running from September 1,1871, to March 1,1872, for cleaning the court-room of the court of common pleas, the original claim being audited by the board of supervisors’ of the county, such audit is sufficient authority for the' comptroller to pay it where no fraud or mistake is alleged. The claim is a proper one against the county.
Perhaps now it may be necessary to require the auditor of accounts to audit this balance in order to compel the comptroller to pay it.
A mandamus against each officer allowed.
These were mptions argued together for peremptory writs of mandamus; one to compel auditor Earle to audit and allow, and the other to compel comptroller Green to approve and pay to the relator the sum of $312.
The relator was employed in the year 1868, by the board of supervisors of the county of Hew York, to clean the rooms in the county court-house used by the court of common pleas, and continued in such employment up to August, 1872; except in October and Hovember, 1871, when disabled by a fall from a horse car, the work was done by the relator’s daughter and other cleaners.
. The compensation to be paid was fixed by a resolution of the board at two dollars per day, and the bill or claim of the relator was audited and allowed May 13th, 1872, by the said board at $416 for her services, extending from September 1st, 1871, to March 1st, 1872.
A part of this sum was paid by the comptroller, but because of alleged absence from duty by the' relator, payment of the entire amount due was refused and audit denied.
The moving papers also show that there were funds applicable to the relator’s claim ; that she was a widow in destitute circumstances, and that the usual demands for audit and payment had been made.
Abraham R. Lawrence, for relator.
George P. Andrews, for respondents.

Opinion:
Fancher, J.
The claim of the relator in the proceedings was audited as a county charge by the supervisors. She had been paid on account of it $104, leaving a balance of $312. For the period between September 1st, 1871, and March 1st, 1872, she has not been paid, although there is an appropriation for such purposes. I think the audit by the supervisors was sufficient, as the services for which the claim is made were rendered, to the county. It is very doubtful whether the auditor or even the comptroller can now disallow the claim where no fraud or mistake is alleged. Although the relator was disabled by an accident from personally performing all the services, it appears they were performed for her by her daughter and others. Ko injustice will be done the county by payment for services which were in good faith thus rendered. The claim is, moreover, legal and just. A mandamus must issue for the payment of the claim; and to obviate any technical difficulty in the way of the comptroller, the auditor must be directed, also by mandamus, to audit the claim for the amount of the balance due the relator.
Perhaps such an order is necessary.
Motions granted.