New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-07-11
JOHN PETIIGKEw's CASE AGAIN.

OF Judge Hoffman OF tie motion to sct aside the
jud queni Oh aineo by John Pe,lisreg against tue
city upon forged coUtract Tie oy'ncn Of
Judge Hoifusu wss delivered on thu 18Th Of June.
but Ii il be reserved important, con.iderstsLs ant
the srtteusnt Of the otdeT. as the order Is not
Annourcrd, We have not the benefit of Ii doca-
ment to sid Us 10 that further consideration VI the
css@ which the public interest reqalres.
The motion made Ia the Court gss y vscate
the judgment upon the ground that the contract
under hich Pettierew obtained j0d gnent had been
f;suduleutl; altered before the commencement OF
the suit il consequence OF which he ID recovered
over -, U00 more than the sum 10 which he was
honesty entitled under the terms Of the contract
as ori.,nalj made On tits motion, As evidence Oi
tie truth Of TIE charge, the origiusl contract was
produced, showing on its face the ensure and
sheraton This wss supported by the affidavit OF
Mr. Lowell, Deputy Street Commissioner, swear
ing 10 bis belief thst the cou'ruc, bad been traudu-
ieLily altered; al.o by evidence that Petiigrew's
original bid had beer secretly taken aw,y FROM the
piece where it bad been placed on record; in lieu
OF winch, however, a copy Of the Did as communi-
Gated 10 the Common Council by the Street Com
nI.siouer At the very tue Of the award OF the
contract, when all was fresh, was furnished, by
which 1t appealed that the original bid Vas Tor -
cents ustesd Of AZ cents, With tue confirming fact
that tie award Of toe contract could only have
been mace TO Pettigrew, because of the price
beng liked at the lowest amount. If toe amount
Of bis bid bad beeo at the larger SUN there would
have be- nine Others lover than his and he could
not have got the contract. In truth, every affirm
alive fact IN the history Of the entire JOB, as well
a, all the pfesumpions, sustained the allegation.
In oppo.ihon to the motion there ~as nothing
but Peftigr.w's general oeDla of guilty CONNECTION
" ith Inc crime, and allt gation Uf " belief thst
bis org nal bid sas IL cen,s per cubic yard. 81
though IN al other part of his affidavit lie sSears
that he Goes not know what his bid Nae, that be
kept no copy Of it, aud had copy of the contract
Upon the main question Of the forgery thrre was
uot ore siree fact presented except the "oelief'
Of Pttiigre~, While there was an abs. nee Of ex'
pianstory facts of the most significant character.
He all. ees that he kept no copy OF hts bad and
pret~bds that lie Vas whnlly iguoraut of Whit he
was 10 receive for work in the daily performance Of
uh ch t- Was engaged for mere than year aud
ha.f. He SAYS be did not zee the contract from
the tine Of its execution until hs or his attorney
procured d copy to commerce the suit. Had be 10
books Of account, uemOranoums or vouchers
Had be no eli, rk OF assistant Who knew oil about
it, The work was earth filling, requiring the
procurement aud transportation of eartn from
other places Can II be believed that be Was
tnus engaged in operations involving exp.nd
lures CONNECTED with this identical item with
out being aware Gf how much be was to
receive for it TbeD, sgain, the bid was made
under oath, with great particularly Of detail, and
accompanied by suretes, who,e responsibility was
regulated by the prices In addition the matter
was Kept pending before the Common Council
until the contract was confirmed; and the confrms-
ton aas made expressly with reference to toe bid
Of - cents. The contract was evidently drawn
With that price inserted: and BESIDES the CONTRACT
Itself furulsbrd on the face of il the most incOn
tesiabe evidence Of alteration, and Of fraudulent
alrersuop. The word Twenty" originally wn1eo.
Was partially erased, as 10 retain the beginning
snd end Of the word, The letter L being changed
BY DISH; ard although the alteration Was made
b, o different band from the original, there ia
careful imitation, and an anxious and almost sue
cess'ul effort to make it sppesr that alteration
had been mace. THIS slruulatlon aid effort to de-
cev-, stos conclusIyey the fraudulent .inteption;
and thus, the very face of the transaction there
Is the uhmis'Akable stamp Of fraud.
1t is remarkable that in the teeth Of sl these cir
cumstances Pettgrew is able to swear that be
d" does lot know what bis original bid vas, and
that he believes" it Wa. for the altered amount;
but The conclusion, father conclusions, tO Which
the learned Judge arrives upon this state facts.
must be regarded ss sill more remarkable. He
say. referring 10 the stfdayi. Of Mr. Lowell:
With the affidavit there i- ground for nquir! into
the fact, at least, ii any inquiry Gao be allowed 10
90 the case" He then cites the revised statutes
upon the subject Of setting judgments aside for
"irregulsriry;" then quotes the Code, which. he
says, ~ more coupre hensive, to show what may
be done 10 relieve party from judgment, taken
sg,irst HIM through hi. mistake, insdyertence,
surpri,e or excus,ble neglect"
Now, the point before the Court was that Petit
grew had obtained Judgment for 81 900 beyond
al! JUST clalu or llgl', on stu !1slrunenI-ih
other words, that the Court hsd been imposed upon
through fisud aud unless relief we're afforded, its
judgment would De made the Instrument of robbery
Ii has been supposed to be = maxim Of the law that
fratd yitiates every thing. What statutes or de-
cisions on the question Of regularity" had 10 do
with the point, We do not clearly see. The learned
Judge does Dot sppear to have reached definite
conclusion whether the Court could afford relief
against this forgery. but SAYS that "any degree of