New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-08-24
THE COURTS.
APPEALS IN THE TWEED CIVIL SUIT.

| MI, or pAPTICIyI ARs CRITICISED BY MIR. PECK
| uAu-RLPLY or DUDLEY FIEID-THE RxCLP-
TroNs TO TIE ORDER OF ARREST SUBMITTED.
| In the case Of the People against William M.
Tweed to recover $6,O0O0O0 taken from the CITY, thero
were three appeas noticed by special order heard yes
| terday before an adjourned meeting Of the Supreme
Cont General Term Two Of these appeals were from an
order OF Judge Donohue That order directed the
As plaintiffs to give the defendants In Dill OF parc
lars O detailed statement Of how much OF tho ioo os
| making up the S6.O00.OO0 was false hcttous' ana
fraudulent and under which Of these heads each Item
came 1t required plaintiffs to strike out all portions
of the complaint charged that the $6OOOooo were
lost through Tweeds negligence. or dsclam any reco'
CRY on that ground abandon the claim that the loss
was owing to fraudulent conspiracy or 10 stse the
two separately ordered the plaintiff to show parcu
,arly the rights city TO the money but denied he
aefeudants motion that each bill Of the 1853 should be
stated IA separate cause Of action. The defendant ap
pealed Iom what denied the plaintiffs from "ha'
was granted The other appeal by Tweed from 'uoS
Barretts order refusing either to discharge MN or re
duce his bail Mr.. Peckham and Charles OConor ooth
appeared for the people; Dudley Field and Dir. Deyo
for Tweed The court composed Oh ChiciJusuce
Davis and Judges Daniels and Brady
Mr. Deyo on behalf Of Tweed objected to any present
hearing Of the appeals. The plaintiffs had their legal
rights from an act of March IL, 1873. They delayed
their action to April With exception OF 10 days
all further delays lasting until June were by the PLAIN
uf, There had been unreasonable delay This
General Term met May l. Its present Adjournment was
merely TO give decisions The Court rules required
| motto. OF any appeal tn be made for the hfst DAY
OF teim The rule could only he avoided on good
cause shown by affidavit. and there was no such
AFFIDAVIT. The rules TO bring on the case
| on an unusual day not complied with
judge Davis said that he had made the order setting
down these appeals; the others were granted Dy
other Judges. had set down this appeal FOR the nrst
uossibe day. because involved stay Of proceedings
,t..l onlyn
had been practice TO hear such appeals with
out regard 10 calendar There certainly no Juris
dic.onai defect 10 the courts hearing 1t at this time
Dudley Field in reply claimed that this kind OF prefer
encc could only given where the responding party con
scnted to ill., In this case instead OF coilSeitng they
profered a stay rather than argue the appeal III the
summer time with the senior counsel. David Dudley
Field, necessarily absent in Europe The judges could
not therefore IN accordance with the rules of the court
the law or their oaths, now hear this appeal He
only asked that this should he treated rs other cases
Judge Daniels said that there nothing in either the
rules OF the Court the law that prevented the hearing
f This motion il had duly noticed An adjourned
term expressly made by law the Same as an orSi-
nal term Judge Davis said The argument must go
on now Dudley Field desired to make another motiO,
but judge said it WAS too late. Mr. Field Insisted
that il was not late it motion In tho same
suit Mr Peckhan agreed to Mr. Fields request tnat
The defendants appeal from Judge Donohue's ORDER
should be heard with his and tne DEFENDANTS az
peal nom ddge Barrets order heard immediately after
ward.
MI Peckham briefly stated the outlines OF the sllit
agans Tw eed FOR the s6OOO00O. Questions presented
ON his appeal wese ~ follows !. Should the complaint
be made more definite in the allegations TO the interest
of the Mayor, etc q Can paintih be compelled to elect
between the socaed allegations Of neglect 10 audit and
those of fraud, and che or the other struck
OUT g. Can plaintiffs be required to serve
such bill Of particulars as ia orderedi The
order OF Judge Donohue was appealable IL was APP
peaablc ~ discretionary order for such or1ers were
clearly aupealable to the General Term, but the order in
prescribing the form in which they shond pursue the
defendants and state their complaint appealabe to
the Court Of Appeals itself. The order was wrong in re-
oring greater dcniteness to the interest Of the city
The had stated ali facts. They ought not TO state
conclusions TO require the plaintiffs to DO more was to
require an indefinite postponement of tlcir suit The
city did complain Of any iDdefniteness the DEFEND
ant who had robbed II had no right to complain
Tho complaint, Mr. Peckham continued makes no In
mutation of gcnce; il charges conspiracy by Tweed
and others to get up and the actual procurement Of
set OF false and oundless claims all of which are spec
fled n schedule of the warrants issued Tor their pay
ARMED by TIC Auditor il merely part of tie narrative by
which tie fraudulent character OF inc irinactoh i eH
hIbit,l Il. II il important technical purpose
L. merely hat Os showing that Tweed cannot set up al
ntria audit or allowance a. an estoppo bar asIns!
te allegations Of fraud. There is NJ reason way lt
setting such cons piracy, ths complaint sIoiiu "ilt
important facts essential 70 the full statement OF the
A. to the bill of particulars. the manner and form OF
Inc defendants fraud SGT ont with great particularly
in thp list of Tie order appealed from was Az
order not 10 furnish The particulars OF !1e Guy elh7
AGAINST Tweed, vi GJrNcy >, -crsOs -. dIu hey SER
claims. That the Court could not compel them 90 eve
Tweed 90 show ground Tor this Information
lie did pretend that he did not know all asoGt hese
| bills lie mad pretended 10 audit item lie hiu TIE
most power 10 know about them ana II was his business
To know and furni his knOwiese to either the cV o.
For lach vi ire information ~ was his uuly to
ulnsh neltAcr ely a"r STATE c"ud give tH4S s"'e"'
'' ,t9o, "wed that not only did he procure de-
bile vouchers nat required OI itr CO.
conslAtoIs the destruction OF ther ily ate az, olt
Until Reproduced the siiit by ts Vlu.I Was
saved Tuis case was distinct that OF The city as
Mariner and IN that the mposSiihit oi giving
bl OF particulars not set out IN that ease and was
Shown in this lie further argued tina. III the case OF re-
peaed OF tie same KIND under the same clfc
/ stances the common law ami code i,olb ao"ed tHe
charging OF the thcfis rs ono and dld not require
| separate count iOr each th,it -, ,,. , A.,
Sir. Field ia reply argued that the complaint OF ine
people in charging that each warrant Was Iase, iiadI
lent snd heli'i"s wa, Seip9s H. c. o. a' id "
Apply some OF these Trey hdd PROOF as 10 some now
nicn false how much fraudulent TINS they
could state III 6ii oI particulars and 30 nm. 'io
claim. He cited Mr.. O'Conors argument IN IL case ~
length
Mr. OConor at the close OF the citation, quietly stated
to the Court ina, the Court OF Appeals had III tlat case
Mr. Field quoted various decisions to show the right Of
a defendant 10 bill OF PARTICULARS HE contents OF the
vouchers II they lost, might be proved by pafoi
bu certainly the plaintiffs could not recover sum OF
SS s Oh besn ve 1oh s Msan the pain
showed right city Tue old equity rule required
the right Of defendant in such to be particularly
SHOWN IL required special statute to make general
allegation, even in foreclosure cases good It was no
| great deal OF Importance the defendant TO know
whether the ciry's claim was thus cut off,
There causes OF action mixed IN the com
plint-neglect and conspiracy Clearly one should be
eliminated, or should be separately stated The de-
PENDANT had right To know clearly what lie was 10 an
In tie same way, lie had right to have each Of
stated, and confoInded together. Ihe Plaintiffs
adayits showed mat separate deenses to each were
20 set them up separately. This not AN extiaor-
binary case, even the plaintiff complaint was True