New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-08
THE COURTS.

TWEED SUED FOR HALF A MILLION.
GEORGE D. MILLERS BILLS FOR LUMBER THE CAUSE
OF ACTION.
Four suits have been brought by the City
since December to money paid Out when Tweed
was in power. One was against Tweed and Edward
Mariner for s55OO0O against Morgan Joues for
s350OOO one against Daniel Bemen for s7jOCo and the
last against Tweed and George 5. Miller lor 10000
With the exception of single item OF 1927 co. these
suits result dealings with Tweed Deputy Street
Commissioner and Commissioner of Public Works in the
years 1863 1862 1870 and 1871 The complaints drawn by
james c. Carter under special retainer OF the Corpora
ton Counsel all IN the same form. The first three
SUITS have been already reported IN THE TRIBUNE.
The form OF the fourth is now presented.
The complaint after averrng the existence OF thecltY
as body corporate. with to sue, and the usual
course of paying and materials on vouchers
duly certified and approved by the department or officer
under whose direction or supervision such work.
services goods had been DONE rendered or furnished
proceeds as follows:
The plaintiffs allcge that the defendant, Miller. prior
10 Oct. 26 1870, frauduleny combined and cOn5plred
slOner, and with divers other persons % the
plaiutiffs unknown. to procure from tie plaintiff
roe anounts OF money under the false pretense
tnat Miller had furnished TO the plaintiffs and or their
use large quantities Of goods aud had performed for
the plant large amounts OF work, labor and services
and tnat the plaintiffs indebted 10 HIM on account
thereof ana TO that end Miller, prior 70 the day last
aforesaid caused to be prepared IN writing ana sub
mted the Street Department, then having charge OF
tLe purchase such goods and the procuring Of such
work labor and services certain bills or vouchers. Ia
which it was pretended aud represented tnat ne had
ned to tbe pantr and FOR their use large amounts
or goods 10 Wit, lumber and had perfo MED Tor the
Id5 indebted 70 him on account thereof IN the
.unl 10000 TO- whereas. IN truth anu IN fact, as
Miller Al lac time Well knew, he had not furnished any
OF the goods had he performed Tor them Of :he
wora, labor services mentioned IN the bills OF YOucn
ers or only very small part thereof; and the prices
charged In the bs for much OF said goods ana labor
rs had fact been furnished or performed II ANY, were
treaty IA excess OF what Miller had any right TO charge,
md he plaintiffs not indebted 10 him on account
thereof IN any whatever Or in very small IT.
Tne plaintiffs further aege That William NJ. Tweed
after1yard IA further prosecution OF the cOnspracy
and prOr TO the last mentioned frauduenty. Jut in
due form caused the bills or vouchers To De certified
ard apprOved "a being correct and that the
aferW ard and the day last mentioned presented 10
the Finance Department for payment, and thar there
nDon the Controller the city pad out or the moneys
OF the plaintiffs Miller and Miller received By way Of
paynen OF the pretended bills tue sum Of money af0re
SAID.
There are % other counts, each separate bill in
the same The amounts OF The bills charged to be
q, Ham