New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-11-15
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
THE RING SUITS.

IMPORTANT prCIstON-TuE COUNTY AND NOT
THE STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO SUE TWEED.
Arguments in the suit Of Charles O'COnOr in
the name Of tho People of this State sgt WIN NJ Tweed,
were heard ut a special term Of tho Supreme Court
Albany IN April last before Judge HogebOom on de-
murrer that the right OF action lay not with the State
but the County Of NewYor the suit being to recover
O0o alleged 20 have been paid cut OF the Treasury OF
tho County fraudulent claims allowed by the defendant
and the demurrer was Overrued Tue case was tn en-
taken on appeal to tho General Term Of the Third De
partmeut Supreme Court. when the Judgment OF
the court below sustained Justices Miller and Potter
holding that the bad the right and that the County
not necessary party In aetion while Justice Far
ker dissented FROM the decision of his learned brohers
aud held that the right of action lay with the County
The suit previously brought against the same de-
fendant by the Supervisors for substantially tho same
cause Of action, before Judge Barrett at Speclh
Term IN this city last october. demurrer OF Mr.
Tweed counsel the objection being that the suit Oy the
State was bar against the suit by the Supervisors.
Judge Barrett rendered decision overruing the Go
murrer aud sustaining the action OF the SUPERVISORS
The defendant went to General Term Of the First
Department on Appeal aud the argument was beard
yesterday before Justices lRgraham Brady and Leon
ard.
In behalf OF the defendant Tweed, his leading coun.
sell David Dudley Field argued that the Court should
sther assent dissent FROM the opinion OF the
General Term Of the Third Department. and If they
Supervisors could not proceed. whereas II both suits
were allowed to be main aimed his client would suncr
injustice and II OF vital Importance 20 have 1t DC
termined which OF thu suits cOuld be maintained.
IL argued eSnrd by tge Porter that the suit
brought by the county tae first ana the only ono
which could entertained; tAat tho county ought TO
consider tho CrOuuds which the Third Departments
decided upon the right OF tho state 20 sue ana that the
Third Department n rendering decision spoke OF ths
Corporation Counsel being in Illusion with the deeho
ant although that charge WAS abandoned upon the agu
ment before then. , ",
Aftor brief consultation. tho Court concurring' JUS
tice Ingraham delivered judgment az follows:
We decide the according TO our own Judg
rnent without regard 10 toe decision OF the Third De
partmont have difficulty IN holding this SUIT Wen
brought and that The Supervisors have tue right TO sue
for money claimed to have been misePplied and taken
from the County Treasury as To the decision OF Tue
Third Department cannot h. hound by It, especially
IS beiag RI ndered by n divided Court Even the two
Judges wh0 c0roHrred IN making IL disagreed III the
reasons which they assignee for arriving at tue sane
conclusions law. Our decision is, therefore that the
right OF action lee with tie eouuythe Judgment OF the
Court below is SUE tliued and demurrer oVeirued
An order was then entered favor Of che Supervisors
tile defendant having 20 days 10 answer. IL was ru-
mored YESTERDAY that Monday, al the opening OF the
Court and Termincr, the District Attorney VIII
enter nolc prossg N tic case OF Tho People against