Year: 1879

ALLEGED BARTERING OF APPOINTMENTS ON THE


81" ROAD CONTRACTOR ACCUSED.


A case quite peculiar IN its features. both as to
facts and law was the subject Of decision by Judge
McAdam in the Marine Court yesterday. It ap-
peared on the trial that Henry Bradley had been q
contractor for the construction part of the New
York al" road. After the road became in running
order it intimared to William B. Cousens. it IL
alleged that for consideration Of 500 he could OBJ
tain an appointment as conductor on the road. He
he paid part to Bradley signed the necessary
application. and in due time being notified by Brad
ley that he had been appointed paid him the balance.
Cousens and seven others. who 1t is also alleged,
had been similarly situated very discovered that
their appointments not made had been revoked
before they had even begun to realize the fruits
thersof The reason Of this was. testified to by
officers Of the company. that they discovered. in
their opinion, some 'crookedness in tho manner of
procuring the appointments to bo made. The dis
appointed parties say they 1t once demanded the
return of their money from Bradley, but that he
refused TO give to them. and al the eight dubbed
their claims by assignment to Cousens, who brought
the present suit against Bradley to recover the $500
received-by him.


PUBLIC POLICY.


Upon these general facts the jury found in favor
Of plaintiff for the full amour. claimed and defend
ants counsel ut once moved for trial on the
ground that the contract upon which the action
based was against public policy and that account
void. IN deciding this application Judge McAdam
said:-"Whie the encouragement of such con-
tracts may. rule. be contrary to the good OF the
public. for the reason that to allow person to
recommend another to an Office or employment under


third person, for private consideration of his own
without the privity OF such third person. might be
fraught with public mischief and tend to perncious
results yet think that in this the practice itself
may be condemned and Mt the same time substantial
justice be meted out. The validity of such q con-
tract may in some depend upon the used
to secure the end In the present the features
which mako such contracts denioralizng wanting
The defendant was in no way connected with
the management Of the elevated railroad, upon
which the plaintiff and his assignors were to have
employment. and no part Of the money given to him
was to be used to influence corrupt any Of tho
to make contracts like the present illegal is the ten
dency which they have to tempt, influence
rupt public officials officers of private corpora
tons in making appointments to responsible posi-
tions without regard to the competency Of the
applicant. This element is not to be found in the
present case. The applicants all Of good char
acter. of previous railroad experience. and were in
the language of Mr.. Onderdonk. the superintendent
OF the road, q fine looking set OF men, The de-
fendant to their employment II he could,
and for his services to have 800 from each ap
plcant, somewhat after the fashion of an intelii-
gence office proprietor.


THE JURY DECLARE IT FRAUD


According to the finding of the jury the defend
ant obtained the money from the applicants fraud
This fraud consisted in representing that the men
had been appointed. when. in fact, they were not.
In such the contract is lost in tho fraud, which
Is the gravanen of the action. The contract is fg
nored and the fraud furnishes the right of action.
The defendant having obtained the money OF the ap
plicants by fraud, according to the finding of the
jury cannot see why the victims should not be
stored to their former condition For these reasons
the motion for new trial must be denied"


1t was stated in the course OF the trial that quito
had been carried in connection with the insu-
guration OF rapid transit in this city.