The New York herald., 1871-12-17
the CASE OF WILLIAM N. TWEED.
The Motion for Reduction Of Bail Denied.
Before Judge Learned

~-~~>>~~~-~~-~>~~-~-->~~--~~~
The Motion for Reduction Of Bail Denied.
Before Judge Learned.
SUPREME CoURr. ALDANY-SPEoIAL TERM-Dec lSn.-
TAe People Wiian N. Toeed, Inpteaded dc.-Thn il
motion the part one delendants. William N.
Tweed upon notice to the plaintiffs reduce the amount of
- may be just II made upon the adavts on which the
order was granted and other papers, and 10 opposed
The motion is made on three grounds:-l That the de-
fendant done no wrong tho premises and Is liable to
mo one That the people are not the proper parsie- plain
fos,-,Aas the Defendant done any wrong and is
he Observed THAI the desnasns msaes no adaV %
For Tie purposes Of this motion therefore, all
which order granted be taken be This
sense OF course DO not say that on trial OF the cause
these allegations may not all De disproved But this
not disproved, but denial oil OF them made The
dsSts would be OF little avail and they Cite Merrt va
Heci.chsr, 50 Barb 1si Nelson Banchned 81 Barb,
I'm where the the order the
evidence Of the defendant They do
NO. hold thai he not BY suncen evidence show. II he
Gavts accompanying are erroneous in whole In part
PURPOSES this notion ana Without with going
into detail, these iac.s seem 20 be established.
under the act s7u which authorized them audit hab
such apilies separate slned certincates At.
acaed 70 the sev.sa Claims wich certificates stated that
gate 10 six .nloa dollars There aoavit
dencs of claims should BY
Board q % or ITS committees oI certificate Of
cate Of the Clerk or President should 70 evience Of the
visors then this defendant.
ts large there was PAID by the Broadway Bank
million dollars and to Woodward million doars
time to time lnserso 0arvey they severay paid
over on the same day or within day or wo 70 woodward
over Sisoi ooe and Garvey nearly SsoSov Thus Wood
these claims, which no deposited bank. From
time TO time as these he checked
of the Defendant Tweed in the money
has sna y sn from % sse
bank The remainder OF this money Woodward has paid out
alleged q ne ss%p,.n, and the seqa
:o a's ss thu, 70
dasns sna issre Is NJ saaasi s'd densin. ssi
gsa ss. the were 70 con-
Tweed agreed aivded and were divided
Known ana this is no, denied by any a1sav
s n iaaV s ersss the the sss r
done and materials furnished and the charged
the claims were grossly ''A''D''A 'AA'
% ps 30 81 a liant SAID az that !. mot no,
money sa. hsre as y NO aaav on the part OF the defend
clerk small salary. with other visible of sup
port hady possible ;ha, he could owe the assnaaa.
Woodwasd BY which he placed in possession Of
thirty days in the months May, Jane July and August
And on every one o these days with perhaps the exception
Tweed Taxing thla regularity OF action connection with
one can hardly doubt that the receipt Of the the
se1 defendant an TTeed was In Of some arrange
have some share in the claims. And II this be SO.
certified oy some presden. OF the Bosr of supervisors
have here stated little evidence point
be cte the CONCLUSION appears 10 me to oe ire
sis,ibe that the defendant abe for alleged
seeona- Are the people the proper partie, plaintiff
poy A and eher cs es osas Go or
reduce the OF bail. For instance, should sue to
recover damages for an assault on b mere stranger 1t
action and therefore order Of arrest shouli be
.ea,e But the present s evidently no such Tnes
pursue claims which belong the people, the
alleged 10 have frauduenty appropriated BY evil
thai e pse. rso IN, eT ns
sci cain should plaintiffs are in collision with the de-
poses OF this motion the defendant admits this
such action rs one nees thoroagn argument and
careful though. correct decision ought not to be
I. in the action In The case o. Frost vs. Nc
OF some lencb says Comi not, on such mo
uon as this tte merits Of the cause on adavs neither
ought 10 come % peJulice Thls ap-
The remark OF the learned Judge made in
question OF TACT not Of law But the principle to some
held Ia. the deeadast IS unqaessoaaby liable on the
set he anas
the people other party, Of
between the parties should be raised decided
would lie higher Cour And no one who has looked a
with care win iee ready express hasiy opinion. In
pont so far time has permitted and the discussions Of
The more have studied the has my belief
that people maintain the action.
As dIed opinion, which fuller Argument may not cha nse
!. Is not disputed that the provision OF the
constitution as t9 excessive oai sppiies . criminal
the question would stu have TO answered what is eIces
e seon ss code Ss. Mea an ssr
Of arrest for ths Old practice by oaaole ap d ,,~-
% the me.ning prao.
ne nee ns Sseru On arrest T 'oon oa o9nd e9ndonsa tast
Tue special ball. excepted TO- were required to Justly
ball piece which the paper signed BY the special bail did
s.a o s - s. s the .AS5s % % % e . a
taxing OF hs BODY TO- the ball. naming them But la
81 ant sndsTes snssd prisoner And This spgsa" 70 be true
81 assr s'Ss S as. G Sc hs % BE- The
% M ns aa S . co. s sa sssr g ne "a
qursd woa!d seem % oe The now ss formerly
enough The ss s1s. as oa !, w
~ probable Ss@ags: = i sS.as S rI.es s. action
plaintirs demand ID In scens ior INJURIES the
course was necessary 70 procus Judges orlsr Ba IN.
.@ous. S1ed the the s%e ss
The Guy o. Ss Ssss when % be sss any s.y 10
smoans for which The aeisbdaa, was sSe fse eoanss
for THIS strongly urged that the
undertaking OF the bail 10 that the oefcnoant shall AL
times render hims. snenabe 10 the OF the Court
and be issued to enforce the Judgment the
inquiry should what sufficient that eDdI But
have already shown that the obligation Of special bail
under the old practice greater than his. All that
would ender tie deepdant
on ~. ~. after juc gment. In TACT, the obligation
OF bail nj presenL instead OF being less, rather
more For they undertake that the defendant
sba nj ali times render himself ameLable
process; while the obligation OF special bal under
ibe practice only offended 10 surrender IN ma process
therefore, that the Code has made any change
principles applicable 70 the amount o. bail And
90 under the Code concerned believe tha
the uniform has that The probable amount o he
defendant's liability determines the amount OF bait u ne
hls