People ex rel. Cramond v. Common Council & Chamberlain — 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 782

Majority

p. 782

The People ex rel. William J. Cramond, Resp’t, v. The Common Council and Chamberlain of the City of Rome, App’lts.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department,

Filed September 30, 1892.)

Headnote

Yeterans—Relief fund—Laws 1887, chap. 706; Laws 1888, chap. 861.

The relief committee of a grand army post is the judge of the necessity for aid for indigent veterans under the provisions of chap. 706, Laws 1887, as amended hy chap. 261, Laws 1888, and not the municipal authorities, and where the latter fail to provide the necessary fund for the1 relief of such necessity they may he compelled to do so by mandamus.

° Appeal by the defendants from an order of the Oneida special term allowing a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the appellants to provide the sum of $280 to be drawn by the relator and other officers of Skillen Post of the Grand Army of the Republic, pursuant to chap. 706 of the Laws of 1887, amended by chap. 261 of the Laws of 1888. The proceeding was instituted cby the relator, who was commander of Post Skillen, supported by the affidavit of Martin, who was a member of the relief committee of the Post and also a member of the common council of the city of Rome.

Charles Carmichael and A. D. Kneeland, for app’lts; D. F. Searl, for resp’t.

—Chapter 706 of the Laws of 1887 authorized special provision to be made “ for the relief of indigent soldiers, sailors and marines and the families of those deceased.” All but the fifth section of the act was amended by chap. 261 of the Laws of 1888. In § 5 of the act of 1887 it is provided that “ indigent veterans with families, and the families- of deceased veterans, shall, whenever practicable, he provided for and relieved at their homes in such city or town in which they shall have a residence, in the manner provided in §§ 1 and 2 of this act.” There is nothing in the affidavits to show any attempt on the

p. 783

part of the relator or the post he represents to disregard the provision quoted. In § 1 of the act of 1888, it is provided that for relief of the class of persons named “ who need assistance in any city * * the proper auditing board of such city * * * shall provide such sum or sums of money as may be necessary, to be drawn upon by the commander and quartermaster of any Post of the Grand Army of the Republic in said city * * upon the recommendation of the relief committee of said Post in the same manner as is now provided by law for the relief of the poor.”

The affidavits show that notices were given the defendant, purant to § 3 of the act of 1888, “ that said Post intends to undertake such relief as is provided by this act,” and the bond provided for by § 4 of the act of 1888 was given and approved. According to the affidavits, the defendant provided certain sums and paid them over to the Post, under the provisions of the statute. Upon further application by the Post, the defendant refused to provide any further sum, “ by a resolution duly and regularly passed, September 7, 1891.”

It is now insisted in behalf of the defendant such action is judicial and final. The act seems to provide that the relief committee of the Post shall judge “of the necessity for aid,” and authorizes the commander and quartermaster to draw upon the fund to be provided to supply the necessary assistance, certified by the commander to be necessary. The power conferred upon the Post and its officers seems to be exceptional for a favored class of indigent persons embraced within its provisions. The proofs before the special term justified its conclusion that the defendant had failed to comply with the provisions of law relating to the needs of such indigent class, and hence the order requiring the defendant to obey and comply with its provisions was proper

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Martin and Merwin, JJ., concur.