The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-09
BOOKS OF BIOGRAPHY.


Little Insight Into How the Thing u
Dons-shsteA OF william M. Tweed, Jr.,
That Was Not Published-Young Tweed
Goes Back Twice ON HIS Contracts, ana
tno Univcrsal Biography PubllsheF
Goes Doubly for Him.-The Matter IN
Tho Courts.
rather singular suit has found It's vay into thu
Court OF Common Pleas, before Judge Robinson.
Az q matter throwing light upon the subject or
some books OF biography lately published, we etve
below q decision OF the Judge rendered YESTERDAY.
in which all the facts OF the case are clearly ana
succinctiy set forth William n. Tweed. yr.. IA thu
party against whom the suit Is brought. 1t win b.
seen how far "Young Bill" came mp to the scratch
In the matter of his agreements; and how the pub
Usher tried to bring him to the chalk line. The lat
ter would seem, however, to be sort OF modern
Shylock. But Judge Robinson is too much for him.
The following is
JUDGE R0BINsON's OPINION.
This action was brought upon an alleged agree
ment OF the defendant dated December H. 1871. TO
pay for nine copies OF literary work. called "Uni-
versal Biography" that was to be published by the
plaintiff. at the rate OF
FIFTY-FIvB DOLLARS FER COPY,
which price was to be paid one half when the proof
sheets OF sketch OF DEFENDANTS life should be
issued 1t also stipulated that II the matter for
such sketch was not furnished by the defendant
within ten days from date the subscription money
was to be paid at that time to apply on the work
referred to or to future similar work, and then
follows the following prOvsiOn:-"I defendant)
agree to pay the publisher the price of three copies
for every days time that eapses between the receipt
and return OF proof OF said SKETCH and also for
every days time that elapses between the end OF
said ten days and the furnishing OF sketch ana
randam." The 't Complainant alleges defendants
neglect to furnish such sketch and photograph
for iSi days that had elapsed when this action was
the day limited by the agreement that the work
tof course without the defendants biography,
had been published and nine copies rendered and
payment demanded and refused, and payment tG
asked not only for the $495, the price Of the nine
copies but also
TwENTY-sIx THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY.
FOUR DOLLARS LIQuIDATED DAMAGES
as per said agreement, and these sums plaintiff
the 9th OF February, 1872, for $27,252 A. The sum-
mons in the action, without complaint and con-
for the OF $27O 60 was handed to the defendant
the 4th day of June, 1872 on the eve OF his de-
been served with another summons in another &C
ton commenced against him by the plaintiff for
similar for another
also to contain his biography, he, in q
FIT or PASSION,
refused to receive or retain it, and there Is every
presumption, from the facts stated in the moving
papers, that he did so supposng It was some trick
on the part Of the plaintiff and the mere repetition
OF the former service. The default evidently oc-
Cured from want Of actual knowledge Of the Char
acter Of the claim; or that It was any other than
defendant Is in Europe, but his agents here have
moved to have the default set aside and that the
motion should be granted, for the reason that the
award OF $26,585 as liquidated damages for the
deendant's life S for publication in this Universal
Biography" which plaintiff subsequently published
without defendants biography, and rendered
: INDUSTRIOUS AND ExrRAvAGANr
that 1t would be reproach to the administration
OF Justice to countenance and uphold it. The judg-
ment finds no warrant In the case made BY tho
complaint, and the claim could only be maintained
by the price OF the volumes rendered, and perhape
for actual damages mot aleged), and sustained
from the delay In furnishing the sketch and photo
graph First the contract is well described In the
1881. as such as no man In his sense 'ani not un-
der delusOn would make, on the one hand, and az
no honest fair woad accent On the oe s
presumption OF "a rr.faa7s "a y4a i
srI.sE DECEIT AND FRAUD 80 a.5ise.y
in its inception. The distinction between legal ana
equitable remedies Is abolished In our system Of
jurisprudence, and such relief is to be afforded,
in equity as Il appropriate to the case presented;
but even courts OF law take notice Of the tnequit-
able and uncOnscientiOus character OF such agree
ments, declared them void and RENTED to the
claimant such damages as afforded reasonable
and Just compensation for any injury he had sus-
tained. In James vs. Morgan, Lew, 3, known as
the horse shoe case where the purchase OF horse,
in whose shoes there were thirty-two nails, and
900 quarters or bushels Of barley on the
trial the Judge directed the jury to disregard tho
contract and fix the value OF the horse, which was
fS, which they did. The principle OF this case has
been approved OF and followed In Earl of Chester
field VS.. Janson Wills, 1856; Hoyer vs. Edwards I
Cow, III: Jusons vs. Brook ID, 1913, and Baxter vs.
Wales IL MOn. 365. In Russell vs.. Roberts, 3 Il. 0.
smith, canvas cover was hired for O
night at the customary charges Of 81 q day. 1t was
not returned before the suit was brought, some
three or four months afterwards. 1t was not
to exceed $50, but this Cont at General Term held
the defendant was not liable to be charged at tho
contract rate per day while Ii was detained; but
the recovery was limited to the value OF its use for
the sum of $l65, the price of three copies Of the
work agreed to be paid for each day that elapsed
from December q, 1871, until the sketch and pho
tograph were furnished, was intended simply by
way OF penalty Ii Is not stated to be intended as
llqudated damages and 1t Is not possible that the
parties ever intended that for absolute failure to
furnish any sketch the eXtravagant and absurd re-
suit would ensue; that the defendant should be
liable to pay
ONE HUNDRED AND sIXTY-FIvE DOLLARS DAY
for all time to come compensation for plaintiffs
uncertain loss, arising from the defendants failure
to furnish the sketch. Under the construction
claimed and upon which plaintiff has acted, ii, in
avoidance OF any question arising from the statute,
the suit were delayed until six years from the first
day OF default was about expiring, he might recover
defendant let In to answer within twenty days after
service OF order to be entered thereon. No costs
are allowed to either party.
--------------
CORONERS' WORK YESTERDAY. e