The New York herald., 1875-07-14
A STRONGLY CONTESTED ARGUMENT.
Look on This Picture and
Look on That.
Tweed WickCdly Presented Ean and The
Greatest OF Modern RascalS.
TIE ARGUMENT TO BE CONTINUED To-Day.


order to show cause why the order OF arrest
against william NJ. Tweed, In the new suit re-
Gently begun against him, should not be vacated or
the So 600, 600 bail be reduced. BEFORE Judge Bar
rett, In Supreme Court Chambers, the argument
took place, and the occasion drew together quite
large attendance-a fact to be mainly attributed
20 widespread supposition that the ex-Mogul
OF Tammany would bs present, but which, how
aver, d1d not prove 10 be the case. But there
was no lack OF his representative counsel, Eessrs.
David Dudley Field Dudley Field and Robert e.
Oeyo appearing for him. william NJ Tweed, Jr,
and Mr. Foster Dewey, former secretary OF the
sx- Boss. were also present. Aessrs. Charles
O'Oonor and Nneelsr Il. Peckham represented
she people.
THE NEW COMPLAINT.
David Dudley Field opened the argument by
stating the GROUNDS which the application Is
made and recited the titles OF the various papers,
among which were the notice OF lis pendens. the
attachment against Mr.. Tweea's property, the
notice OF discontinuance OF the old suit and the
commencement OF the new, the complaint and
order OF arrest. He then read the new complaint
In The This complaint sets forth that 1870
Tweed, Connolly ana Hall were appointed a Board
OF Audit for the county, and that they held but
one meeting; that Tweed and their clerk, James
Watson, conspred to obtain moneys OF the city,
and caused to be presented various warrants and
vouchers the amounts OF which were paid out OF
moneys TO the Comptroller's credit, and which
were paid to various individuals and were OBJ
tained possession OF py Tweed ana watson, and
the action to reclaim the money for neglect 70
audit or conspiracy or both. The property de-
BcrIoed In the lis pendens is enormous IN amount
and scattered. The complaint that $e,Ooo,ooo
were stolen from the city BY the defendant ana
watson, and the order of arrest Is baIabls In
ts,Ooo,OOO.
BRIEF RESUME.
The defendants urge tnat the suit In 1870 was
Substantially for the same cause OF action that
she Courr OF Appeals decided that the suit had no
foundation; that the Legislature was induced TO
pass an act the object OF which appears TO have
been to nuify the action Of the Court OF Appeals
that the present suit is founded on that act; bat
bsfore commencing 1t the plaintiffs did not take
the precautlon to discontinue the nrst suit that
they indeed entered order declaring that the
suit was discontinued, and directing that the de-
iendant's should be paid; bat the costs
never were paid or rendered, and the DEFENDANTS
ball n that suit have never been discharged. Two
other suits against the same de endant were
brought in 1871 and are SILL pending, one oy the
Mayor, &e., and the other by the supervisors.
GROUNDS OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION.
the principal grounds urged IN support ol the
already arrested and Reld to bau IN 1000, 600 at
the suit OF the same plaintns, for the same cause
while other actions for the same cause were pend.
Ing. and that similar suit between the same par
ties, Tor the same cause OF action, was and Is
pending wherein the defendant was aud Is still
under bail TO The amount OF ST. 900. 900; that the
papers on which the order was granted we're not
EuficIently or properly verified; that no cause OF
action In favor OF the plalntlffs le shown by the
compint ,s. or Ine papsr on wucs the oroer
bait and his property at the same time and in the
same action; tnat the BAH would be excessive,
that the amount OF bail IS excessive ana proAioited
BY the constitution, and that the bail saould not
exceed an amount which the defendant is sup
DUDLEY FIELDS ARGUxESr
HIS first point was that a defendant cnce ar.
rested In a clvl action cannot be again arrested
for the same cause OF action except under crcum-
stances wnch 90 not arise III TINS case. He urged
tnat This is the rule, though The first suit may have
been discontinued. Tne general rule on The suo-
ject Is Lhus laid down IN ''Ttdd's Prseacen "a
defendant having once been arrested cannot in |
general De arrested again ior the same cause OF 4
causa.n He then cited the case OF Archer va |
Cnampney % Moore, COZ, in which the Court |
sald:-"The general rule is that defendant
cannot be Tearrested after a disconunuance,
non-suit or non pros, unless the former
mistake would tend to snow tnat the second /
arrest was not vexatous. But IL Is not only \
necessary for the plaintiff to snow thar he discon-
tlnued OF non -prossed The former action, on tns
ground OF misconcepnon or mistake, but that the |
not DO this the Court win infer that It was sou
lie then Insisted tnat the amendments 10 the Code |
arrest are obtained Ia this action are amend I
ments only OF two distinct sections OF the CO0e- /
VIZ, Of arrests and OF attachments; that
cases where arrests may be had TO cases
o. persons OBTAINING, without riaAt pub
where attachments may De had 10 tue \
same class OF persons; tnat In all otBer respects
the law remains as 1t was before, and that there
is nothing TO authorize the combustion OF the
two remedles In the cases spoken OF, ana the Law
further, taat IL Is entirely clear from the cases
cited that defendant canaot be arrested ia
90 bail Is pending, ana that II the PRIOR suit had
been discontnusc the secons would have been
held vexatiODA His seeona point was that the
present sult Is vexauous and the prosecutton
under all the ciTcumStanees- may be characterized
a. o malicious one, and tDat the Court will not
willingly lend 70 aid In a SUIT OF that character
He urged that Fbere are Ia fact three other suits
Tweed, and Toe Board OF Supervisors vs. Tweed.
Hts third point was that an attachment 1
An order Of arrest ana an attachment IN the same
action should not De allowed. The two provisional
matter cannos be resorted TO- for that wouid work
oppression. Indeed they cannot co-exisr, for
they are Inconsistent. 10 require bail Oi de- !
Iendant, after taking from Rim all his property. Is
20 require what would be an impossibillty IN nine
cases out Of ten. The wAole spirit Of our law IS
against IT, IAe sole purpose OF al arrest IS 10 |
secure the person oi the defendant; the sole pur-
pose Of bail is 10 relieve him from cOnstrant IL u
mockery TO REQUIRE ban which cannot be gwen; |
en- act or oppression intOlsrabe ia any country, |
and Illegal IN this. IL Is Tor ths reason that \
tne pro otslon o. our constitution was adopted. /
The abuse OF the power by Judges ed 70 lt. \
What Is excessive Dailf T1at wnlcn ~ beyond she \
power OF the parry 10 give The soe pur-
pose Of provlsonal remedies is 70 make enec-
tual the maj remedy But ior nnal remedy the
plafnt1n cannot have DOtb the property and the
person; and he can Onlv have the person AZ
means Of obtaining the properly. 10 Aays az the
Eane time the two prOvlslOD8 remedies OF st. !
tachment ana arrest would thus be neon sistent |
with the theory q the final renedy. They are,
moreover, inconsistent vita each other. zoe |
Code allows q defendant % deposit money instead
of pail lsection ls7g. But The defendant cannot
deposit money Il you take IL iron MIN;
therefore, TO take from defendant tue
means Of making deposit for MS relief
and then 10 arrest mm aud say IN effect
yOu shall remain In jail until you make the de.
pOst, Is 70 bind MIN nrst ana then tell MIN 70 de-
lend himself Let as suppose the de endanC TO
have SO, coz, 600 IN money AZ the commencement Of
the action ana 20 have nothing else. lhe law says
n yOu arc arrested you may relieve yourself bY
deD0siting the money. Ine plaintiffs claim that
they can first seize the money ano then seizo the
defendant also and hold both. Be next urged AZ
an additional point that the afiidavits on whicn