The New York herald., 1875-12-14
TwEED's BoNDsMEN.


Among the multiplicity OF suits commenced against
Tweed are, is well known OF lesser magnitude
than the so-called 900 900 and ST. OOo 600 Occupy
ing such conspicuous place the prior proceedings
in these various suits do not alone in the records
but in the public memory, IL is unnecessary to recite
them all in detail to give ereso the Of the
various bondsmen or the respective amounts for which
they became surety Since the escape OF Tweed these
minor matters, however, begin TO assume phase OF
nconsderable magnitude and the result is no little
tremuousness the part OF certain whilom friends OF
the Boss'' who allowed themselves to become bonds
men for his appearance for trial when wanted The
question now is, whether Tweed having been COM
mtted to Jail in default of the large bail required in the
civil suits and escaped from custody his bondsmen in
the other suits be held legally responsible for his
production in court Certain proceedings were
had yesterday before Judge Donohue, sitting as
Judge of the Court of Oyer and Termner, the
object Of which is solve this sphinx like riddle
District Attorney Phelps, 1t appears, had served
notice on Tweeds counsel that unless he produced
in the Court OF Oyer and Termner yesterday morning
TO answer to the criminal indictments found against
him his bondsmen would be held accountable for the
amount Of their respective bail bonds; or, in other
words, in Of such failure the bail in each case
would be declared forfeited. Messrs David Dudley
Field and Dudley Field appeared in response to the
notice. and Assistant District Attorney Lyon to press
the motion for forfeiture Of bail
Mr.. David Dudley Field wished to know on which in
dctment Mr.. Tweed was to be called
Mr. Lyon said they proposed to have him called on
all the indictments.
Some informal discussion ensued and at length the
indictment selected as the to be called first was
that found June 16, 1875, against Tweed Sweeny and
others, for alleged conspiracy
civilian NJ. Tweed, called out Mr. Sparks, the
Clerk, in clear, ringing voice There response,
"A gmi YuCin tenlf thaa
nance OF every one present admits OF the Interpretation
of rejoinder
a request by direction OF the Court to the Clerk
10 call on Mr. Charles Devlin Mr. Tweed's surety undor
the conspiracy indictment TO produce the body of Will
liam M Tweed, which request il is hardly necessary TO
state Mr. Devlin although present In court and how
ever strongly he may have felt inclined to obey, failed
The above preliminary scenes ended, Mr. Field took
hold Of the subject matter with something of feel
Ing earnesness making quite speech. He began with
stating that thcrc are seven recognZances which the
people move 10 forfeit five executed by Charles
Devln and two by Alfred B. Sands. They
vary IN terms and in respect to the
indictments upon which they purpose to be given But
two OF the deiences common to all and they will
be first presented They are these First after the
giving of the recognzances the people took the defend
ant out OF the hands Of the bail keepers and thus
changed their relations to him and 10 the people and
their ability TO surrender him. recognzance is
contract 10 be construed like other contracts and ef
fected or discharged like them Thus 1t is the common
practice to discharge all rccognizances OF persons sub
sequently imprisoned on criminal sentences. Second
there is no evidence OF continuance to the present
term OF the proceedings upon any of the indictments
This IS not the term at which the defendant first
required to appear, and being subsequent one a con-
tinuance must be shown. The bail, therefore, would
not be in default for not producing him at the
present time, even II the contracts still subsstng
contracts The condition is not broken and for that
the bail not liable Mr. Field claimed further
that the recognizances l, 2, 8 and could not be
forfeited, because there such Indictments as
are therein described. The pretence which these
recognizances were exacted uniounded, and for
that reason they must tall Again, the recognzances
z and were entered into under a msapprehension
and mistake of fact, IL being supposed by both
parties that the indictments mentioned therein
were for new matter, whereas they were in
fact for matter for which the defendant had
already been convicted, sentenced and punished
by imprisonment on an indictment subsequent
to the indictments which these two recognizances
were founded He further urged that the recognzances
Nos. 3, and were void for uncertainty, IL ap-
pearings that there six indictments to which Nos.
and 5slll apply and seven to which No will apply
In conclusion he claims that the recognzance No 8
discharged by the subsequent finding another in
dctment for the same NATTER this operating to super
sede the former.
Mr Lyons took up each objection, and refuting
each separately, argued that this unusual pro-
cedure, TO say the least He insisted that the duty OF
the Court TO order the forfeiture of the
bail, and that Mr.. Fields objections should
be taken to the General Term He contended, IN ad.
dtion that the point raised by reference to
the discharge OF bail by the Imprisonment Of Tweed
being variance oil their bail bonds not true and
that the obligations OF bail merely suspended by
imprisonments and were operative Immediately after
his release from jail.
Amer hearing some further argument Judge Donohue
adjourned the further proceedings until Monday next