The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-05-18
George LAWS Lobby Operation In Court.
BROOKLYN CITY COURT.
Before Honorable judge Culver


Before Honorable Judge Culver
MAY l4.--Wm H. Bigelo,o Assignee Of Dauii A. Boxes
H. gorge LGg-Tbe plaintiff stated in his complaint filed
"Ihat in tho year 1861 the Of $500 900 was,
about TO become due from defendant 10 tho government
the United statcs for kets and ammunition which the
said defendant had heretofore from the said 60
vernneu That the said defendant desired N obtain from
said government extension of tDo for tho payment Of
the said Indebtedness and therefore employed David A.
Bokee member Of Congress, to negotiate with the
said government Ind with the heads Of the proper execu
tive departments thereof, for such extension. That the
said Bokce accepted Of entered upon the said employ
ment and in the thereof had frequent interviews
with the then President Of the United States the Secretary
Of War; the Attorney General and other high unctonarics
Of the government respect such extension and the
and conditions thereof, and devoted much lme
eron and influence TO effect the said purpose of his
poy That the said exerons Of the said Bokcc in
the of his said employ ment, successful and
resulted IN obtaining from the said government on long
and an that the said defendant might pay the
said of about $500 900 In instruments with simple in
teres the final iusalment being thereby made payable
about Elk years thereafter"
The plaintiff then forth the importance said extern
zion TO defendant, and further alleges folows-rhas
when the said Bokee employ ed and about 10
upon the psrfm u his said services. the de-
fen ant agreed with him to pay him liberal compensa-
lion for his services and his influence In eccng the object
thereof and the plaintiff that what the said Bokee did
for the defendant in the and by virtue Of such
poy ment reasonably worth the sum of $4,000 Tho
plain till then alleges assignment Of the entire demand
by BOkee him. and he makes 70 the truth of the
SCI forth In the complaint
The defendant In his answer denied the truth OF the COM
plant.
The being called and jary the plaintiffs
counsel opened by reading tho complaint and stating the
circumstances as alleged therein more At large He re-
ferred TO the intimate political, social and peronal rca
lions Of Mr. Bokee with the then President, (Ar Nlmore
Attorney General, (Tr. crsnden and o;her high fune
tiopaes and 10 the confidence they reposed In him, and
That ss % ns Go o. % % o
He then proposeo read in evidence copy Of the agree
ment between Mr. Conrad and Mr. Law, under which the
extension made The counsel for defendant objected
and nterposed . motion W dismiss the case, upon the
ground that II appeared by the complaint died and sworn
Hs the nnS G bs Ss ssssa are
not fucb "a a court OF law would allow SUIT fors
He argued that the Court gould Dos ooanenanoe any
controlling nleghimaiely either members OF The
Legislation of the executive departments OF tho
federal government, those Of any OF States, ~ they
Hkened such TO those Of unbracery ct common law
He denied that c exteson OF relerred 70 was
rendered defendant legitimate assistance, % being
allowed depended solely upon the exercise Of liberal o
cal discretion by the Secretary Of War; and be defended
M Conrad from the impuaton Of having been influenced
alleged by plaintiff. He cited several legal decisions
| Tho Judge after hearing the counsel for plaintiff
length and tho counsel for defendant In reply onounce
bis opinion referring 70 the alleged oonsos got forth
the complain, and TO the employment twioe Of the wor,
influence" therein stating the contracts and, likewise
the opening of the case BY plaibus counsel sgroene
with The stated the complaint, and he ordered
the 10 be dismissed tho grounds maintained by do
PENDANTS counsel.
The counsel for plaintiff thcreupon moved 10 amend tho
complaint by striking out the word influence" which
he admitted not felicously' used and which he
also contended WAS Improperly construed by the other
side.
DEFENDANTS council objesed 10 this motion on tho
grounds that the complaint 70 by plaintiff and
.r ~
which could not be taken back and because the pnnth o
opening inconsistent with the proposed alteraun.
The Court adhered the order drpiug the but
granted the motion 10 amend stating that did not change
It's view OF the case, and allowed both parties 10 except TO
hts decisions within twenty days when plaintiff could abe
make H.