, 1863-11-30
,Qt)ifaoo @rib'1l1e,
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 80. 1868.
THE CITY.
THE RuMsEY-coLBY SUIT.
Colby Claims $4,000 Damages
From Ramsey.
4 VERDICT OF "NOT GUILTY."

EIOW haWSeys
4 VERDICT OF "NOT GUILTY."
, 6UpK1on CoUnr-W. F. CoLaT r.. JULIAN
RExeEr, ron IaE-BR1H RESUME or TEE
FAc1s.-The case of ". F. Colby 70. Julian s.
Rumeey, for libel tried before Judge Gary, On Fri
day and Saturday Of the past week. is 80 identified
with the hle:ory Of the city government, that In
connection with sketch OF the trial. VIC propoKcto
give briet 1esume Of the facts out Of which it
Srose. -.-..-
Il appears that In 1853 there existed In Chicago
q business association by the name Of the Chicago
Stone md Coal Mining Company, whose teams
were obliged to make large use Of the street called
the Western ASenue. This Western Avenue being
in somewhat heavy condition, the company de-
srcd to hare 1t paved and procured the passage OF
an ordinance for paving 1t at the city's expense
contracted under the ordinance to do the work, and
within the first two weeks after it's passage had
ASaualy accomplished little Of it. In that inter
yal however, the Council smelt something, which
led them TO repeal the ordinance at the regular
meeting, Immediately succeeding the one which
adopted it. The work on Western Avenue, how.
eycT, being for the Interest Of the G. s. &. G. n
Co., was not suspended by tho repeal Of the ordi-
nance. The company went On and completed It,
nd then claimed that the cost ol the work should
he made up to them by the city, claim which the
city was not ewifs to recognize.
In The disrute concerning this claIu, Julian n.
Ruu,sey, Mayor, and S. D.Ward. Comptroller OF tho
cdry. IN 1850 who treated tic demand rs spurious,
became especially repuguant to William F. Colby,
= ync,nbet of .he c. G. S. n. Co., and one Of the
Common Council for that year, who WIS working
Ycu hnrd to hsve the claim allowed.
We do not intend to do anything more than bare
" a1lude to the fight among the city officials grow
lug partly ont Of political. and partly
4a1f @ :. Of. personal motives, Of which Comp
trp1cr Ward wns the central figure, in 1861. nor to
the tedious Investigations and counter tnvestiga-
ffous that were made by the Common Council It
will be remembered that among these "inrestiga~
tio,,s =. was ono in which Alderman Colby made
hlmscu especially actiye, founded upon the state
mcute OF paper pntporting to he signed by one
Smart. Tho had been member Of the city police
1mdee John Wentworth, but which was shown to
he the prpdnction Of HI. Flint, formerly editor
q be Ghsago Gin PsSs5 e
s.ify and with covering his delalcaHon with 1cti-
1icas payrolls, and pretended t% ds.ail con con
yersation between w1sa ana "entw9TS n1t dq. ,hs
Cmpirpler confessed his dcfalcation, and the mode
he hnd used to conceal it. The statements Of this
papss peed WV invesiIsasion by Committee Of The Com
mon Council With view to Wards removal, in the
Tmrse ff which and the Colby investigation which
followed ,s,e1 II tas epe shoEp 10 be fofgees, and is
contents unmitIcated falrehoods.
Il was atthe close Of the former Of these tnyest-
Eli thc Communication on which the present euit
lot libel Ia founded. This cemmunaeasaon was rs
follows: S:a rn.:.. Wv. ,oeo
Gentlemen Of lhc Common Council: 1belieyc that
asaR Mfiho4pe eD a1a e {. G Flint, and pslhap. o,h
txnn.~ anil inrF
the Comptroller removed from Office for the follow
inc reasons, viz: thinking that they would be bet
Ter able to Ewindle the city on some old claims
Which thy Rreeno to nec aamos aenaI
probabF originating in the fact that they would not
quite evident to those hearing the evidence before
the investigating committed that forgery and per
jusy were both madc use Of AZ, however, but one
ftc Consideration of tbs case Of Alderman Colby.
And nox ch4ree Alderman Colby:
character Of d prominent financial city official By
making eo-called charges agsinst him thereby en.
dcarofing to procure hie EemoEa 9eileys,ng s tnal
fhtm, and By 20 doing. deliberately injurfnE the
cocd name and financial credit ofthc city, which
II m Alderman he is bound to protect
Aldermen 10 vote fot such removal before he or
Others 1ad intended 10 make such charFez-,
Z. That by Misrepresentation ne 1ooaced otne1
certain claim paid, belonging TO Ellithosgs and @
Colby; against ths city amounting to fGo@, S ios
MsfteIn nysMne ~ neTpF 11 =. snc s
i, Acine dishonesty haying said last named
claim to be upjust) in endeavoring to eel or by
pothccate 1t 10 innocent parties.
{. With selling an estimate to an innocent party
issued by the Oily to Eithorpe and Colby for worl
dong On West Randolph amSeontns w1h 5,dp n1eTs :,
Eamc having to hia knowledge been paid by tn
city more than year before he eod II.
ten relating 10 the caty government during III
time that he has been Alderman, which an invest
cation into the facts will show.
1t ja doubtful whether a committee has th
right TO rubpena witnesses AID compel them I
answer questions, respectfully suggest Chat
the Common Council has the power . that yon u
with view il they be found to be trnc to q su!
hcInt extent to justify such action, to expell Al
delman Colby from This body.
Common Council. aTose TWO Judicial, Or quasi 1udi
ga one ct ths hs AZ was the nqa
some four months, and verbatim report q which
wue ii uot made by Hitr, tho celebrated s!eno
gpher and is f. n Senps'e 10 hEe ,be hrna aen
enf Of al enthusiasts in this description Of hscrs
The other cue was the suit Of Colby q. RnmseJ
1or Hhcl, brought in the Superior Court some twc
Year, ago, and aied before Judge Gary on Ffids5
ar In this case plaintiff based his declaration in
libel on the words Of the TWO introductory para
Errphs of the Mayors communication. and moi
On shc language contained in the specific charges
thcu1sclyre, the latter undoubtedly filling within
the clnse Of privileged Communications.
TO the declaration defendant pleaded only the
The order and rceul, Of the rial were briefly a.
follows: Amer opening the case to TIE jury II
ehurt speech Mr. Van Buren,, counsel for the plain
1in offered in evidence from certified copy q ths
Mayors communication, the language On which tht
plaintiff relied az libellous. .,
lie then produced AID ComtsEy asa witness, whe
proved the publication asd3 to be S esaaons a, 9y
the Council, and then haring refreshed big memory
bya peusal OF the printed report Of the Colby tnves
tsat1on, before spoken q TESTIFIED & TO eestais hI
the council, during that Investigation. fele!ng +
conversations between defendant. members OF tn
Cou1en and Other asiu before NE anTsSga1hao, 20
rp0Ee1 very freely Of Colbys character and partic
Iurly Of bis connection with the claim for Iaeada
mixing Western Avepne chafe5snSS S dhs the l,tte II
rnecnl and d scpuudstl. This testimony was intro
dneed as connect for plaintin by way Of as
aEsiton9 to ge f1ss bV
Eunsel 10. defendant attempted TO cross- e1am
Ee e tnees h 10 me s nnue 81 70
OF plaintiff, lad rGdcrcrIe and thus Tcbut tho prt
ermption Of maiice, by showing that the iangaag
waa such as any honest man would naturally appl
to transactions Of 1tGt description. Bat the coul
ruled such course OF exAn.nationto to be ctnadmiss
able. The defence WIS, however. permitted to IN
vrrrations Of the defendant. 70 far Ms they wen
sl,uwn by the Aforesaid printed report, of Ehic!
the witncse, on his examination In chief had test1
Of The fcport, but as ths statement oi tho witnes
CuausIy. with his recollection refreshed: as aforc
.,,d. II ~ pesu:a,;, a, tHpon rnnnso, mis pr99o