New-York tribune., 1875-02-02
THE NEW RING SUITS.

MOTION FOR A BILL or PARTICULARS BEFORE
JUDGE LAwRESCE--RISG METHODS or ENRICH-
MENT.
Application was made yesterday to Judge
Lawrence In Supreme Court Chambers for bill Of par
iicuars in the two suits recently brought by the city
one against Edward Mlrrener and WIN. NJ. Tweed for
$4,000 the other against George 8 Miller and Tweed
$500 OOO Tie first suit has 81 counts the second has
"a Each count sets out particular aynent made by
the city and charges that Il was on bill fraudulentY
made by Of the defendants and fraudulently and
colusively certified to BY Tweed Each count ends as
follows:
In ah and ci he he said H,rreaer At he tine veil knew
be aad not furnished TIE d p1nHi Tor their anJ Of zoe
goods meat NED IA sal D or Vluelef' or ba ~ sA p'
thereof and The prices eigs inr 80 much as Wa flr1a an
and TIE said Dirtas not indebted ain "hAse'eT Oa
account thereof or but In very small sun"
The application made yesterday by Dudley Field was
on behalf OF Tweed alone, ana substance tnat the
city furnish copies the bills which these payments
were made. he agreed that such demand came within
the rules Of the code; that defendant had been pubic
officer many years aud the city had all the vouchers for
what had been paid that defendant, prisoner In the
Peniteutiary could not know from memory what the
accounts were or what part claimed to be fraudu
lent or have access himself to the youch-
ers He could not tell from the com-
plant whether the plaintiff relied proof that
articles charged which not furnished, or on
proof Of the excessive price Of articles furnished a ne
furnished Defend1nt's couns" desired TO narrow down
the issues that they might not be compelled 70 come
with proof OF each article Furnished and IL value ana
army men, aBOrers ana mechanics, t. prove every
iIen when only q small portion might De as5alled
Whatever M Tweed WA, was entitled 10 tho same
flglts before the law other men, and nos 10 nave
new interpretations aud strained applied to him
aIOne
Mr. Carter for the city desired to recall % the Court
how these matters were carried On Ulder "a ia" du-
thorIZIng tie Controller ult unsettled claims any
one uf tine cltere who surrounded the men IN power
who wanted money drew up MS bill, anywhere RON
s. OO to S75OOO any dale II audited ami cert
ne0 AMI bonds issued and paid all tue same ddY. Ol
II tue goods charged Tor were no futse.i 'e
bills and their auCIts were frduduient Ol the bHis IN
these suits probably goods furnished Ou proD-
ably some small amounts were. TIat dId not remove
the bill OF IT, character A. Whole Iht ZVe
the city right recover all though the leftndiut7 as
an abatement OF GIIa-c, ml-nt De allowed 70 snow "h
their sldo that they had furnished some Va ue. Inc
complaint specific enough; % sJFt uAM'5 dates
Aui amounts Of trdutieut bills. II they "rlt h"-
fraudulent the answer was ea-y1 denial 0t the lFdHI
Tup Court KEW ta vouchers nad been stolen 10 give
the bills AMI designate fraudulent lJems wOud ne
o. rely " give evidence. II IWeeC'- appeal tnA the
magnitude Of his frauds prevented MIN rIu renl4Det-
ing this particular frlu, 70 dli not comm .d 1-e 20
the Court. II bills not fsIudueut ne records
his office would be al easy defense. Inc Court TO
served us decision.