New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-07-27
JUDGE DoNoHrrs DECISION CRITICISED.

VIEWS or PROMINENT LAWYER CONNECTED
WITH COUNSEL FOR TIE PROSECUTION AGAINST
TWEED.
A lawyer nearly connected with the counsel
for the poople the suits against Tweed and the othcr
members tho Ring remarked yesterday that ne was
unable understand the decision OF Judge Dohohle'
Judge Donohue based his decision an opinion OF Judge
Lawrence in the suit Of the city against Tweed ana
Miller The order in that suit had not yet been settled,
and he coud not compare the orders There were Two
marked differences between the two In the Miller
case there was no proof thai the bills and the items III
them could M, produced by the city In the Tweed
case it was distinctly shown by affidavit not Only ia'
the plaintiffs couid furnish such bills, but thai IWctu
or some one associated with him had himself created the
impossiblity. That was the first distinction Tie
second was that while in the Miller suit the
fats ne yer had been brought trial. ia this matter all
the had been presented IN criminal sun ana Oh
them Tweed had been condemned. There was actually
verdict that Tweed had defranied the people, a. was
charged IA this suit The dcision OF the Court oi APP
pea- relieving him from par of the penalty did not re-
liayc him from the finding Of fact Judge Is bound 10
take notice of patcut matters OF history He has no right
to sl his eye, to such facts those mentioned. The
allowing of such order judge Donohrc granted was
matter OF discretion. There no presumption III
civil suits rs criminal. In favor % defendant facH
stood equal /, seemed To the lawyer, although he dh
NOT wish to impatc intentional wrong Judse Donohuc
orfcr which would, if sustained. substantially put an
end this st and lac agreed with the counsel for TIE
people that doing he lad done the Jude had made
most serious and gone far TO defeat the ends Ot
justice.
Another portion Of the order required the painh, to
choose whether they would Tweed Is having caused
loss by criminal neglect or 10y delibera" conspiracy
reason was given for this decision, ana the lawyer
could not follow Judge D0IOhdc's mind IN arriving at
this conclusion II true tha there an old rule
against alternative pleading. but he code only required
a plain statement Ol the facts, and If either ground were
proved the headings might be concerned TO the evil
dcncc. Here again the matter was Discretionary with
the iude aud II seemed to the lawyer strange that the
discretion was exercised behalf of public pludcrer
t. shut Out Important evidence agaiEs, ium.
Speaking merely from memory this gentleman thought
there Sas precedent which both parties had for-ottJn
Edwards MuIIio. tbc great toTpcr % his day, was son
fenced, hc believed for ~ ycTS to STATE prison by jude;
Kent. That must have been = cumulative sentence Tor
several ufru-,s The speaker had rot examined the case
recently. but there were circumstances connected with
which lWl rrsscd tlat belief OH him.
Win D. gard Judge C0stOch's letter. this lawyer
thought Judge C0InstUci, sCTd have been thC last man
10 a-sil Chare. OCOnoI ht had done His assault
M OCouOr for Cucising he Court Uf Appeals WAS IN
strange contrast with his own attack oH Jui' Davis,
who woud hr known ANA admired long aitc. NEST
OF liz critics were wholly forgotten.