New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-11-20
POWERS OF Mr.. BERGHs SOCIETY.

IT'S RIGHT To INTERFERE WITH ABArTOR METHODS.
In the suit brought by Edward w. Davis
and others against the society for the Prevention of
Cruelty Animals Judge Larrcnore ia Common Pleas,
Special Term yesterday rendered Judgment FOR tho dc
fendans Tue case was in Substance tried q motion
- euIon the society from interfering with the business
OF the plaintiffs have abattor for killing hogs.
Mr.. Bergh claimed that their method VS. cruel, who
the plaintiffs claimed that Il mercul could be
devised. The Court, at Special and General Term
that notion did not pass this dispute but held that
an Injunction could not be granted against society hsy
ing certain police powers ii from exercising
those powers formal trial had before Judge Lar
remore. who decides tho effect the General
Term. He said:
The testimony the trial has not materially changed
the rights and relations OF ne parties 70 ihls action 'ge
the motion 80 Dissolve the Injunction wis dec1od;
the opinion then expressed may DE considered
part OF this decision Tue points subsequently raised
are Fist, tit SPELL @ ~ ~ was .r ~, - 'fn
before aay arrest ooald bo lawfully made by Mt.
pursuance al the act OF April IL 1851 10 h sufficient
To say 10 ths objection, that section Of SAID
act requires such special designation Of such agent
authorizes the snern 10 desa nate any agent OF sad
society 10 make arrests. This was Shown 10 nave been
done IN the oi the defclaDt Bergh. and he
tius legally autA oriIed - maAe arresta.
Secsd: That Bergh did arrest one Of The plaintiffs
servants. and the Injunction SHOULD therefor BE- ud
r vent multpiicity OF sris. do not think tbs owl
tne warrants the CONCLUSION that any arrest THIS
csr was actually made. Bcrgh found the door ~ the
painting establishment 0pou ana cnt1rcd without oD-
ccn; talked with one OF the pant rs but the mode
Of slaugoIing animals then IN roc ana Threatened
10 mako an arIest II sucD mode were continued. but
even II 1t were otnorwse Bersn rs tho duly desnliDd
a.ont Of the succt, uli section ~ aid act had an.
,nontJ TO make an arrest Tor amy oheusr prescribed
ta,rcn when such oDon5o was committed IN MS p.rs-
euc- Having ehod tIis conclusion, It fOiiOws tia,
ne defendants emitted Ia tdsnp t m their favor
FURTHER STEPS IN THE TWEED SUITS
replies FOR TIE PEOPLE 10 IHg AMENDED ANSWERS.
On the consent of Wheeler II. Peckham, the
following order entered yesterday in the sN-MJn
suit asalnst Tweed before Judge D1nohGo Ia ouprono
Court, Chambers:
Upon reading and fling the affidavit OF the defendant
dated g. 1875, and te notice of motion FOR ORDER
rsgnng the plaintiffs reply to the answer, dated Nov
d. 1870. aud III motion Of buddy Field ON behalf OF
la mrs cOnscnting. IL is ordered hat tAo plaintiffs
reply the nats.7 set forth H. tue fourth, hitu, sixth,
an seventh deiensUs contained ia the amended
The motion for smilar order IA the million suit
had been contested By Mr. Pcckhsm unless the defend.
ants would stpuIte not TO serve an amended answer;
but IA the defendant that protest has served
amen led order the opposition, though s existing rs
protest bach Of the Orior bad lost its foce aud
an order in almost the same words was entered IA The
snaI.or suit without substantial opposition. san
another motion the calendar 10 bactte the order
II arrest OF reduce Tweed's bail IN the smaller suit
some OF the papers relied ON b. INgeeds counsel
papers used in the larger suit DIR Pecham Insisted
ais technical right to with copies OF all papers
not directly connected with tho minor su She case
went over 10 Wednesday 10 enable Mr.. Field 10
them.
Later in the day Mr. Pefkham served his replies in
Ooih suits Toe reply OF the people the new matter
5ot out Tweed5 deieuse 20 the Pl 100000 suit
staatially that, while admitting the recovery of judg
ment against be watson estate Tor sos J31 - and the
collection Of - 90 40 81 on mat judi ncnt, plain
ms deny any bo.su with tle Watson estate and to
bargains VITA insolsou Gue Carey, they deny every
s.,ug except tIai G5VCy aBd mgCga0i witnesses
n tie Watson SUIT. The roily m the s6,0OO.0D0
suit denies generally any bargains, ex-
,ept that John II. Keyser executed TO jack
,On 3. schultz assigDment OF large amount
u property on ccrlJiu trusts, Oi which plaintiffs BgS, 40
,uOWlclge aud win which thoy have Ilcnuci con-
!cctlUu. IIc) therefore aver ignorance Of HLai L D.
lone under trusts eGCrpt td among tie ma ers
glUd 90 M schultz Nts lrVato rl.m or kcg ssIs
s.uu-t Nv ed winch was presented Dy ATTORNEY 81 n
ul Barlow not a. Attorney General but attorney ur
oUhltz, and -ly recovery md IN tIlt 5it ci.lir
fr Mr schultz a. rusteei o. fur to ty Hnd COGuy II
Scw-lOrL lHe it~' of tue rrp.y 3. euustiutiiJ
duplication %. the reply ~ tue ono million suit