New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-11-06

certainly not enlargedbe equitable Jurisdiction which
il hes given. 1t has given power to grant any
other relief upon complaint that the Court OF Chan
Gerry could have formerly granted upon bill. If the
plaintiff is entitled 10 the relief which he asks be must
seek IL by petition motion in the action in which
be is defendsnt. He haS mis- axe bis remedy in fling
this complaint.
The motion to continue the Injunction is denied,
and Injunction heretofore granted is dissolved.
OAKLTr Chief Justice, concurred. l.. b. Shepard,
for plsiniif; j. 7. Brady, for defendant
4 CARD FROM THE HOY. ?. A TALLMADGE.
To ne Edior Of 7h> ~ y. Tr6va<.
sIR: noticed ip THE TRIBUNE Of yesterday morning
article r,I.ns TO Fernando Wood stating 1851
indicted By the Grand Jury Of this county for alleged audu
lent ons growing out Of business with Edward E Mar
yne.
You state that me indictment vas spnmary Giipo,.S or
by the then Recorder " TAllros5ge You further say
OF the Recorder who made the decision passed through
BAKERS hands and esshed in bank about the same
time"
seem. to be regarded fair In politics as,l esnd
date. BY the press without much regard to truth but
why private citizen candidate for Office. and in
way Connected with advocate for Fernando Wood
should be thus essailed, know not
As to the indictment sssnst M Wood his plea and the
ten Of the Court thereon have only remark that
from lie being ummsrly disposed Of by the Recorder"
you remark 1t argued deliberately By hesss Hoffman and
Within the District Attorney (nr Blunt in November
Term and decided at the rext Of the Court all the
judges eoncuring AID IN which deolon hT Blunt fully
CURED.
But YOU further remark:
are sssured thst check Of 500 drawn BY Mr. Wo'd
In favor Of Recorder who made the decison set
Though brokers' hands and oAshed in bank about the
time"
Itpow not your informant but permit say that every
wor5 OF that sros and infamous charge false and
M Wood to or to any other person
behalf such cheek other; and broker st my
quest csshed such check for At solicitation; and
no person but malicious sooundre could have made such
INTERPRETATION to you.
request of you the Of hs .uthor of this libel
a. am perfectly prepared 10 dprove lis truth and will sv,
myself Of early opportunity to do so, If you will give me
responsible name.
You will further ObHse By giving this insertion
'' Nee n' s. is5i ''f''' IA TALLMADGE.
Remark.
Mr. Talmadge's closing request is perfectly proper,
and shall be complied with. He ought to have
quoted our paragraph entire, bu no matter-he shall
have the name he asks for.-And now to business.
Mr. Tallmadge says he is no party to this quarrel,
and should have been left out of it. But his cerif
cate of good character 10 behalf Of Fernando Wood
il freely advertised in the newspapers, and electors
are exhorted on the strength thereof to vote for Wood
az an injured and persecuted man Has Mr. Tall
madge right, then, to complain that he is dragged
into this controversy
But is his letter that Of an honorable, Impartial
magistrate, or more like Toombs pettifogger Con-
slider the facts
Fernando Wood has now sued at least one Editor
and threatened others for publications with reference
10 this Marvne business He says he shall permit no
impeachment of his character. But why did he not
waive all techncaliies and stand his trial the in
dc,ment found against him y That was glorious
opportunity to clear his character-not by dozen
law. suits but by oncnot by suing many people who
bear him no alice and who have done bin no inten-
tional harm, but by branding with falsehood and
iepomny his real aocuser-the very man who III any
BODY has assaled and calu minated him. Why evade
trial on tho indictment by pleading the statute OF
limitations, and then turn fercely upon those who
repeat the charges thus evaded
Mr.. Tallmadge fastens upon the words summarily
disposed Of in our previous article, and proclaims
with an air of triumph that he took time enough before
deciding in the Wood case. Certainly, he did But
what we meant and were perfectly understood to
mean. was this-Mr. Tallmadge did not let
the oase 20 TO trial on ~ merits, but turned
il out of Court on a plea under the statute
Of limitatons-namely, that the offense lin
fact oae of the offenses) charged had been COM
med three years and one day prier to the finding OF
the Indictment That is to say he decided that an
ofense committed on the 9TH Of November AZ, could
not be made the subject Of indictment on the 9TH Of
November, 1851. On this ground, the Indictment was
ousshed ard W God cleared.
Such is the simple truth. Such was the gist of our
former statement. Does Mr.. Tallmadge dispute it |!
Does he change its aspect Does he cast any ne"
light upon it And if not, why does lie darken eoun'
sci by saying anything about it,