New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-11-17
TWEED'S DEFEAT.

THE DISMISSAL OF HIS Two AffLALS'
UNANIMOUS OPINION or TIE COURT OF HIGHEST
RESORT AGAINST HM-THE ORDER OF ARREST
sUsTAINED-NO BILL or PARTICULARS ALLOWED
ALBANY. Nov. 16.-The two appeals OF William h
Tweed from this city to the Court of Appeals upon
his applications for vacation of the order OF arrest
and for a bill of particulars were denied yesterday
The Court was unanimous in its decision OF both
cases Wheeler H. Peckham appeared for the State,
David Dudley Field for Mr. Tweed. Upon the ap-
plicaton for an order vacating the arrest the de-
cision read By Chief-Justice Church was briefly as
follows:
The questions presented are First whether the de
PENDANT be held 20 trial In second acuOn neghh Int
a. PENDANT invoke, the maxim Memo debt lis cerGT
eadea co,tsa" II 10 always question Of TACT
ccpendiuC upon circumstances, whether secohu
action is ycXatOus IN this case the si action va, Us
continued upon the final decision OF THIS Court AGAINST
the right 70 bring 10 IN me name OF we ptol'e Ol ne
state. special 0f the Legislature was subsequently
obtained authorizing IL, and this action "a- nrguh IN
pursuance " such act The gO9d iltn on w loi,.l
prosecution l. questioned and the circumstances re-
pei tho idea OF yexston. II Is not reyeWaDs IA TINS
The second point the first action was not dIseon,
upon the ground That the costs OF the former hIIu i'
not been paid. The order Of dis ontinuance hoHeIe
valid and effective from the time II was served ana
the Plaintiffs would not be IN rant uhh tho ueieHud'
procured the costs 10 Doe adjusted. -,
The third point urged Is that The order 10 hold % pan
should be- vacated, because the painLns also seeo IN
attachment IL does not appear tilI any gDop'S re-
levied hY virtue OF the attdcnIHtbl. b',-'s' t
Court has held that order Of arrest anu ai.aeniei'
may be had IN the action ana thai IL - lincItth
nay he rcsored TO- $50 \. Y, 1861 Being discretion
ary il II not renewable here. ,f,
Fourth: II is also urged that the amount on nil ~ *
ccs.ye This r. clearly que stiOn OF discretion WIN he
Court below. aud not appealabe There Is no rue OF
- OOp 600 especially M where the amount sought
to be recovered = double that sum. ,.,
Fdh The last question presented IL tHal Le acl vi
IsT authorizing this action is unconstitutional, upon
the ground that The Legislature cannot nlerf anu
eidDgi1 r., the civ ar Corrf 81 NewYorR. We agree
With tne counsel fOr the plaintiff, that tL7 - Question.
which shouid De gated the trial Of the action, ana
not determined upon special motion FOR obvious ret
urged ~ him. II Is not Improper hO"tyri 10 gay
thaf the former action this Court. WINE Aoldlhs lA
tie action could nos then be prosecuted IA W H1 ~
tho people OF the state ntinacu tAa. ,Ie tt-lte
hal the mower such prosecution Dy statute
Tie U $50 passed iof mat p'fpo'5' ,, 90.
Tie cOunoes brief and the opinion IN = 'i'1' -
fail to convince that tho Legislature OF th' STD mn
not PCS 70 il p, r,rsrt essItton tie local Affairs
state. This general proposition was ainfhit1 ~ r,uS
Court in Tie People agt fagg - y l.. iVa, Ia H.
however unnecessary To elabOrlte TIE question OF u
relv adudicate IT, as IL properly belongs TO the
trial Of The action The appeal must be dismissed
In the ease Of the application for bill Of rartcu-
lars the decision pronounced BY Justice Miller.
Ii is in substance follows;
The questions arising upon this appeal are purely e-a
The order in relation ~ bill Of particulars was MAI.
purely discretionary, recently ltd DIV th- Cou1
in the cast Of iliOu against eechti. III. va
Court 10 extend the time denur upon the decision ~
the appcal from the order Of The special Term was also
matter oil discretion With the exercise 0i NAlcH LIS
Court should not interfere. The defendant could nave
denuIiud the compliant IA the FIRST instance nad ne
chostn 10 do sO and mus have presented iu' que o -
~ whether the city proper party, ~ wei d' SUI
others could properly arise ia ihat ofin ~ ~ s8us,
hv motion have the pleading made more etln', ne
has no Just ground for complaint thar Lle e"lrt com
ueiieG lin 10 au-Ner nor uors thy SUI H4Oh "a 'No
plaintiffs attorney IN any WY a.ect we 4u'stiuH.
Inc complaint does moi contain separate charge TOT
NEGLECT aud another for conspiracy II piiort- 10 ENs
history OF the acts connected win tho ana
therein i appears. by way OF narrative thi ne "eI-
ant ADD Ei associates were justly tAHfBt'p.e WI MI
negligence well as fraud in The perlo nance on te.
official duty. THIS clearly Is not separate an" i'sLet
claim Tor neglect Of duty upon wren 'h. tston Md, y,
based but STATE mcnt OF Iact auxiliary 10 anu ~ 3 oI
the general charge 81 conspiracy, Iy means OF "h1h I
money obtained. II may be rrga,ded az par on
ra seuting its real character and - consi R9r
iloa ~ ne cause Of action AGAINST TIE d.itnd. me
between the charges Of conspiracy and re chaFse ni
the n t 70 compel au election would also be matter Of
discretion OF the Court which the application was Hd-
80 me ,i,frs,i. rt 1r fid referred 10 ia the
naiut and specifically stated IN the scheduled oud pc
stated SEPARATE an conformity Win section 4o' Oh tho
Cole tn.ns be i- entirely iu error
As the conp plant alleges that al the items sen Iorth ~
u q general conspiracy. statement IN deia OF edch
one separately would be unnecessary and there II no
stating cause % action OF his character. a. common
law. IN ordinary actions of assumpst general STATE.
acton is rsa. dea a. ,nt ,in tbc eoic
fail 10 accomplish ts purpose ia So ere a. and tedious
pr0ixity was demanded. Il should Dr. entirely
clear that The pleading ID insufficient before
no Court should interfere, and un-e's sGr5
IS plainly the case. tle relief drmaAd,d
should Doe refused n f. lot apparent here mat there
ais dc Get 10 ts respect aud aa .lth LIpi'G,ols a.
address, very much to the discretion u the Court me
decision Of the General Term IS final and no apeea mes
fisr ia o. this Court. Chatter of Dan, I'D Apo ~ o
tTGt IL is evident that lie decision or tlc General
Term gas made uaou 3 the pont- presented ~ the e1-
erci.e of b. ga. discreet e-tug -n tat Court na no
LEGAL right hs,Iu 1oe violated BE- - not tJe subject 81
review in this Court f--e Howell AIT Mills, y. r.,
g.J rivertnorc AK. Baunrlse. 90 =. - Tabor ast
care icr Il ~ y 2Jst THE appeal should Therefore TIE
"a Ism. .,rJ with cost. SIT concur