The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-10-15
THE COURTS.
THE TWEED SIX MILLION SUIT
Decision on the Appeal from the Supreme
Court, General Term, Decisions.
A Stay Of Proceedings Denied and Case
Ordered to Speedy Trial

A decision was given yesterday by Judge Lawrence,
in Supreme Court Chambers, upon the motion argued
before him the day previous for stay OF proceed
ngs upon the decisions recently granted in the Tweed
six million suit by the Supreme Court General Term
The object OF the stay to make an appeal to the
Court of Appeals, which, however does not meet till
the 9th OF next month Judge Lawrence, as will be
seen by the opinion given below. denies tho motion.
which will compel the to be brought to trial before
the Supreme Court Circuit the first Monday of next
month The following is the opnion:-
OPINION OF JUDGE LAWRENCE.
motion is made the part of the defendant
First-An order staying all proceedings until the de-
PENDANTS appeals to the Court Of Appeals from the
orders made by tho General Term herein on the Sth
9th of October shall be heard and determined, &c.
Second-That an order made 10 extend the time
for said defendant 10 answer until tho said appeals shall
be heard &c.
Thrd-The notice of motion is also for such other and
further order may be just
Tho order of the Sth OF October Is an order OF the
General Term OF this department reversing an order
made Special Term OF Mr. Justice Donohue requir-
Ing the plaintiffs 10 serve an amended complaint speci-
First-What right and interest in the promises the
Mayor Aldermen Commonalty set up or pretend TO.
Second-Requiring the plantin either 70 strike out
OF the complaint or 70 state that they do not
rely upon allegations therein contained as cause OF
action that the plaintiffs shall strike out so much of
the complaint sets forth fraud, conspiracy
binaon the part OF the defendants Tweed and
Nelson.
ticulars of their claim the defendant The order
OF the General Term affirming an order made at Special
Term by Mr. Justice Barrett, denying a motion to re-
duce the amount Of bail ordered to DO given by the
PENDANT in previous order for arrest
The granting OF the stay proceedings upon this ap
peal In the discretion Of the Court and tho ques
ton determination whether on the papers before
proper Is made out for the exercise OF the
discretionary power One OF the orders appealed from
among other matters provides, as has already been
stated that the plaintiffs shall furnish the defendant
bill OF particulars The granting of bill Of partic
uars also in the discretion OF the Court and it
Of the Court below not appeaabe to the Court Of
Appeals. This has been held in numerous
(Gedney Purdy, 47th N Y, &c. farley Graham,
4sth N. " 65S; People sehorncher, 5oth N. Y,
400; Paul VS. Munger 47th N Y, 469l and in the case
OF held thai Sen e
whether the Court below in the OF its discre
ton, should grant or refuse bill OF particulars Tho
appeal in that was entered solely the ground
that the Court below had refused TO give the bill to the
next of power to do In the light OF this decision
II would seem to be improper to grant stay far
the appeal relates to the order refusing bill OF partc
ulars 1t Is apparent that such appeal must be
gatory. portion of the order Mr. Justice Donohue
denied the motion the part of the defendant to
strike out parts of the complaint AS TO this part of
the order 1t would appear from the provisions OF the
9TH subdivision OF the 18th section of the Code OF Pro-
cedure that there can be appeal As clear
from the authorities cited that part of the orders of
the Sh OF October receivable by the Court or APP
peals and that snd appeals must be dismissed by that
Court, think that 1t would be improper for me TO
grant the stay applied for An order Tor stay in and
Of an appeal which the appellate court, in similar
has frequently declared 1t would not entertain,
would seem TO De unWarrantaDle exercise oil power.
Again, the General Term of this department. IN the
opinion delivered the settlement Of these orders, has
expressed its opinion virtually upon the question sub
mitted for my consideration. 1t has declared that,
there stay OF proceedings by the order appealed
FROM the legal result of the that
that the defendants time TO dernur had
expired and after discussion tho settlement of this
order the General Term granted TO the defendant
era days in which to answer stating that such pro-
vision would leave the plaintiff sufficient time notice
the cause for trial at the November Circuit.
The effect OF granting stay would practically be to
set at naught the order Of the appellate Court made
after full examination of the and after hearing
the parties So far the application for stay relates
TO the order affirming the order of Mr. Justice Barrett
feel myself obliged to deny the notion the ground
that the General Term has by opinion and decision
above referred to, LETT alternative As l
grant the stay without assuming to qualify modify
conditions deliberately imposed by the General Term,
after hearing am obliged to deny the motion.
SETTLING ORDER.
Directly following the giving of the opinion an order
prepared by counsel accordance with its direc-