New-York tribune., 1875-10-07
TWEED'S HOPES BAFFLED.
THE APPEALs OF TIE PROSECUTION sue
CESSFUL.

urADY IN SUPREME COURT. GENERAL TERM-THE
ORDER or JUDGE BARRETT SUSTAINING THE
$1,000. 900 BAIL AFFIRMED BY JUDGES BRADY
AND DANIELS
The Supreme Court. General Term, yesterday
gave decisions on appeals from orders IN the last
suit Of the state against william NJ Tweed for over
sg 600 600 The first Of these appeals from Judge
Donohue order directing the people to furnish Tweed
with bin OF particulars and elect whether they would
proceed against him for negligence or fraudulent CON
spracy strike ont the latter charge. Tweed had also
aupcaed from this order certain requests OF his
on the same motion not granted Judges Davis and
Brady give the opinions this motion and reverse the
portion which the people appeal ana athrh the Por
ton rom which Tweed appeals The other appeal was
from judge Barrets decision refusing TO Nacate the
900 order of arrest in Tweed's case or reduce IT,
aud the Court affirm Judge Barrctts decision. The
ou,nious ON this latter question given by Judges
Brady and Daniels.
Judge Brady holds that the question whether or not
han is excessive depends upon the sum claimed Ihere
s thing before Court to whether Tweed is OF j.
not guilty OF the frauds charged prima iacie ease Is
nohe ont against him S6O0OOOO II there Is no
pr,ccnt for - 900 600 bail there is parallel for the
sum ALLEGED to have stolen Every case makes its
own details II is frequently the case that fuouen'
debtor is unable 20 procure surceS. The defendant mas
q, prisoner right to have the trial OF his cause speedily
On putting I'm his he take advantage of TINS
provision and thus the duration Of his confinement de
pends much his proceedings.
Judge Daniels in his opinion, at much greater
length into the questions involved lie states the ground
ot the action and the substance Of the aidaYts ana
holds that y them Tweed appears to have been me th-
cua participant purloniuS funds from the cijF ny
fraud lie recalls the suit brought in 1871 and ID" order
of ig, i'm H. ANA that neither in that nor this mas
Tweed made any denial Of the facts on which he was ed
20 bail and dcduccs presumption that he cannot deny
thf truth citing the opinion Of Judge Const"cR IN ""F-
don against The People lie holds that taking these facts
s.sabhcd weed and his accomp1ceN are e3ch iesp'h
blc for the whole loss 10 the city or county frauducn'Y
i- Iy their direction participation, approval OF coA-
niyance When public officers whlfuiy disregard th'lf
ohsatons they the full measure OF punishment
which the ndu.cut OF the state have provided -
uroiceiiou against these Instead Of ingcniousy
searching for and dcyisng ur>uhstantSl reasons Tor
their immunity it will DE hc purpose Of the courts 10
maintain al the restraints which have been provided
one ~ these hy arrest. the law regarding the h" 'I
The debtor "a tie highest security, bat allowing Dali 20
avoid unnecessary hardship For that reason ban Sh'uin
approx mate 70 probable recovery and when IT does
hat is not excessive II the criterion were The amount
"A try On giye the very worst offenders would ce"Jp"
on the smallest security, thcir ability IN That respect
being ordinarily much below their capa~.ty Cor CRIME.
Tweed has therefore been treated with great Hheiy'
his hail hciug fixed az only half the amount OF Ms p"
face liability.
JYd els then cons n1crs at length The constitution
alty of The act ot 1870 Transferring 70 the state the
rigLt 10 sue claim belonging to municipal corpora
ton He holds that though law Transferring property
from one person another may be unconsjitutcn fhc
person injured alone question the act and may hy
ncduie,ceCc make it valid. The city not questioning
that right Tweed canvot Tie act of 1879 does not
deprive the city Of its property hut only deYs"S anothr
remedy 10 secure claims certain cases In regard
70 the claim OF Tweed that. having been previously AZ
rested in euit for the same OF action hc cannot
be again arrested, Judge Daniels holds that the
rule invoked fer him only applies with the
qualifications that the second arrest is veXa-
tiou- oppressive or in bad faith Here no one
Of these matters appears and therefore the rule
cannot apply The first arrest WAS defeated with the ac
tion in winch il was granted by tho defendants persist
ant resistance the second was not veXa'io"S II D. clear
that the present arrest made in good faith and That
the failure Of that previously made suitci"ntlyeX
cused 10 render in this proper one judge
Daniels further holds that the first st properly dis
continued and that the failure TO tax and nay the COSTS
after an offer 90 do so. did prevent uch dis'onfnu-
ance judge Daniels then considers the objection that an
attachment of Tccds property having been issued the
order OF arrest cannot Doc maintained concurrent j. ana
S t", --ti,av reach Sy property. holds that both
remedies may Doe concurrent though the Court should see
taat thr creditor should not have complete security for
his claim from each OtLorNS" the TWO WIUS may c'rN
10 the code lie therefore tuns judge Barrctts order
on the Other motion judges Davis ana lH%' give the
opinions. Judge Davis, after rcciuus th. i"" "ndeF
witch jHc suit is brought, HOLDS That rs rr''Fr. ~
county. aHd tho Complaint u tLc suit disclose very
II
claim for 81 Ooo y'o, the c'ur!am Us not orrr.r "
not formally setting up the whole reason why the CITY ~
T..ifias tie iia1f, to elect whether they Win pro-
coed ground OF neglect to auot or upon i-:d-
u,a5 , Sa,,@' ie Urb,,J ns il proceeds uuon
an altogether erroneous idea Of the nature "f
tine action and The Oi5cct OF the H'tIh,htS'
Under the old system Of pleading, 1t would G.,t b.ra
enough o. have dvcrred I"ccl7 icc'ut OF "''"i'"'
ioI the the city, and under such AL 4NerHet 10
ertcs obtained the Inouoi Tao complaint in i- case
b.
means ANA process Ised by the wrOnglncrs. There
no ,eraat, cause, Of action, but rccla. OF the
,,,,.s Of action II was mere oycr-caut.ou .H th.
v..ac. and tlc oder coinu,lug part TO bc -tr,kcn
30: could Lave eject except 60 cE40aIra-- t' court
Al TRIAL Tc hn,ral es are Intended promote g -ic,
tr iey f a. Nat ,li and come 10 tot IKE
ne OF justice, courts should neither encourage
A. 10 DE requirement Of TIC order thst the pl1iutG
furnish Tweed with . BIZ OF particulars oa se'c-i
grounds, ho holds that Is erroneous, first "ccad5 e
plaintiffs cannot comply vtl iht r4mrtnti. =, u az
own act nave lu great '- IRE ctc'.l "a 'l.iS
tho OF items being DESTROYED bF the direction az
Hc should before making ih' ltillu ai l.. @ ''' f''
himself from a connection Win u" sp"l tl q "HH""
that the plaintiffs have tEC means OF furnishing ne con
tents "i ti'c Ge., "l' "''N ,'.u ,'.' t. i
were parties 10 the original iIausacunHS lIotsh
wr1u5 my Eo 20 unrejIc,aei Tho plptgs ici rroj 10
VA thr order requisite to t.Nc Iln i!.! ol pa. ~
TIE private boob, and papcN. Of Iwcrfs c0Cedt atrS
and not within the legitimate Office OF an oIdcr Tor nil
81 defrIUoag par'a 10 maze all efforts 1i iIe "e 10
pear 10 have existed this case would enable defend
sn by oha.uiu. such a ordt, 20, tAs 20 defy the State
Iiu, judge Davis holds thai bin Of particulars can
br .,lir. in tls CASE The complaint c.c.ry sj!t.s
Ntniy false and fraudulent There Is, Therefore, no
ground o require the plaintiffs To state what p'r', were
legal aud Just The s5lc purpose OF h al p2iyuhrs e
o. .-ceiisin what The claim, Of tie plan4s are lie
theory of tho defendant, that Il any itcn IN the bills