Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
deceased any time after ne was and qualified, and during the term for which be 1938 elected. So that no such effect follows from the action of the Common Council upon the Approprintion hill for 1875 as claimed by counsel for defendant. The only other question In the case Is whether or not the office of Police Commissioner WAR abolished by the mere act of the city becoming Incorporated In May. 1875, under the General law. Up. on that question I feel bonnd by the rulings. and they are my own views also, of the Supreme Court in the case of Sherldan (decessed) VM. Colvin and the City of Chicago, 7H III.. 237. In that CAFE the question was Involved. Its decision was necessary. and. after full argument and consideration, the Court held that ench relacorporation of the city under the General law did not, 1p*o facto, abolish the office of Police Commissioners. lint the declaion is placed upon the ground that he provisions of the General law authorized the City Council to take the powers and duties given by the former charter of the city and conferred on the Board of Police CommisP1 incre from that body, and hertow them upon a City Marshal. so far as the City of Chicago WOR concerned, but the Court dented the power of the City Council to abolish the office In toto. This was on the ground that the Police Commissioners were something more than mere city officers, but were officers having powers extending beyond the territorial limits of the city. They were elected by the voters of the county, and their powers extended throughout the county. They were. therefore. county officers. So far as their powers extended beyond the territorial limits of the city, they remained unallected I by any ordinance the City Council could pare. am of the opinion that the deceased was In legal contemplation such officer until his term expired by lapse of time, the Brat Monday of December. 1875. and that the Issuer should be and they are found In favor of plaintiffs. and their damages are ******* cd at $1,750. for which judgment will be entered. HEALTH COMMISSIONER HOOK. The same reasoning WOR followed in the case of Moses Hook, Health Commissioner, against the city, to recover the amount of his salary from May 1, 1875, to Feb. 10, 1876. He was appointed to fill a vacaney In an unexpired term ending April, 1877. His sulary was fixed at $500. but the Common Council In the Appropristion bill of 1875 left the amount unexpressed. Judge MeAllister held the same reasoning would apply as to the Sheridan case. and entered up judginent III Hook's favor for $350. THE FIDELITY SAVINGS BANK. Dr. Turpin, Receiver of the Fidefity Savings Bank, had his usual number of favore to ask of the Court yesterday. He holds five notes of N. 8. Bouton for $2,000 each, and one for $3,000, secured by trust-deed on the W. ½ of Lot 14 in the Assessor's Division of the N. 1/2 of the S. E. 11 of Seca. 20, 39, 14. Bouton offers to convey thirteen-ffteenths of this property to the Recelver In full settlement of these notes. The notes are Indorsed b the Cook County National Bank, and as Mr. Bouton is Insolvent the Rccelver thought be better accept the offer and save expense. There is another Incumbrance for $2,000 on the land which, cm be paid off with the remaining two-fifteenths of the property. The Receiver was directed to close with the offer. The Receiver also presensed a bill of Mr. Dexter of $250 on account of his services and three days' time spent in shutting the bank up, and mildly suggested that the bank was liable for the amount, though it could not be charged to Receiver's expenses, and that it ought to be paid. An order was made that this should be paid out of the bank's assets. The Receiver then presented a similar hill of C. A. Oregory for exactly the same amount. This claim, to say the least. is extortionate. Mr. Gregory's client's claim IS for less than $100. The Receiver was not appointed under this bill. Mr. Gregory only talked about lifteen minutes, and his bill might just as well have been dismissed for all the good 11 did. It was filed. as Mr. Gregory said. as " safeguard in case the Johnson bill of Mr. Dexter was held not to be sufficient. As n matter of fact, it was held to be sufficient. and no action was taken on Mr. Gregory's bill. It will cost more than 10 per cent to close up the estate at this for thereare 098 more lawyers to he heard from. Mr. Dexter's services were probably worth the amount, but it does not seem that Mr. Gregory rendered a quid pro quo for his arguments. THE PROTECTION LIFE-INSURANCE COMPANY. In the Protection Life-Insurance Company case the Receiver filed a petition setting out that among the assets of the Company are two certificates of stock of the First National Bank of Carlinville, one. No. 1, for ten shares issued to A. W. Edwards, the other, No. 45. for ninety shares issued to Elizabeth R. Edwards. This stock had been placed with the City Savings Bank or Its President, A. L. Ainberg, us collateral to secure drafts to the amount of $0,570.23 drawn by Amberg on the Insurance Company. All but one of these drafts have been paid. This remaining drait for $3,500 is probably held by the Will County National Bank of Jollet. The City Savings bank in insolvent, and its officers or Ambeig are attempting to make away with the stock. An order was therefore entered, as asked, restraining Amberg or any other persons having this stock from disposing of it, and directing them to surrender it to the Clerk of the Court, subject to any rights they might have. THE CHICAGO LIFE. In the case of the Chicago Life-Insurance Company, the petition of J. K. Barry to have certain land turned over to him was granted by Judge Williams. It appears that Barry and Clapp, the Secretary of the Company, loaned out money together, and subsequently were compelled to buy In the property mortgaged to save their claims. Barry then filed a petition to have certain land turned over to him, on the ground that he had furnished the funds with which It had been bought, and his petition was granted. AN EX-CONSUL IN TROUBLE. Mrs. Mary Saltow and her son Gottlleb Neupert filed a bill yesterday against Henry Claussentus, formerly German Consul here, accusing him of somecrooked transactions. Mrs. Saltow, nee Neupert, savs that In December, 1872, she was possessed of some securities and a little inoney of the value of about $2,000. This she was desirous of investing for the benefit of her boy Gottlicb. She asked advice of Claussenius about It, and he recommended that she should convey all her property by trust-deed to the German Consul here. A deed was accordingly prepared, but it conveyed the securities to Claussenlus personally and not as German Consul. IIo has used the money and the proceeds of the trust-deed and notes in his own private banking business without giving any security, and in fraud of his agreement. The complainants, therefore, ask that Claussenius may be removed from his position as trustee.
