New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-30
THE COURTS.
THIE CRY ANp Trs FORMER BANKERs.

THE CITY AND ITS FORMER BANKERS.
rug SUITS AGAINST THE BaOaDwAY ASD TENTH
NATIONAL BANKs-THs CITY ORDERED TO FUR
NIsu BILL on PARTICULARS.
In the suit brought by tho city against the
Broadway Bank the form OF su't rs IL hank
account TIE citv alleged in Us complaint that Il mad
deposited. city account with the blnk nSOOiOjJ or
winch there had been "duiy aud properly paid OUT
than s2250)o leaving balance OF 81 oO0oo due on
that account besides soOO)o interest that on county
account IL had deposited s69 0Occo with the bank OF
when there had been duly and properly plid oue'
envy siS35eOOo, leaving due Ga that account S50JOoo
making an aggregate claim against the Dal& VI over
socoo besides interest. AlthOu;h this the form
Of the suit Il was understood that the claim that
the bank responsible for the payment Of warrants
irregular IN form aud with forged Endorsements
made during tue years OF the great Ring frauds
Tie defeudlnt applied FOR q bill Of particulars on afl-
davs setCug ont that 1t had pail out all the moneys
deposited with it on warrants; that all these war
rants excep. about fifty transfer warrants, had been
returned 70 tho city, that there 922e6 such war
rants and since the charged was only per cent
Of the whole transactions, IL hal right 10 know
which q the 91266 warrants claimed TO be wrong
OF Insult ,eut vouchers which to pay tue city or
county money. The motion argued for the defend
ant by exJ1 ge Enott aud opposed for the city by
James C. Carer. in supreme Court Chambers. before
Judge Lawrence, VINO yesterday rendered his decision
AHfr brief review Of precedsnis, Judge Lawrence
says:
Applying the rules aid down in the Just cited to
the it will at he as IL seems 10
OF The plaintiff demant. II nowhere appears rom the
complaint nae ground the plaintiffs claim that the
defendant has "duy and properly" pdli out NO more
tbsu the stated ~ tAe cOmpldut The defe1dinCs
afi av1t SHOWS that upOa ms lace OF books it
Iears tnat an moneys epo itei wnt ny the ca lnher
lam County have Deeu Withdrawn aud PAID out on
w.Irau,s properly drawn, slgne1 ant couIser>iSued,
bat that ali OF the warrants. tue execution OF
shout 50, In the possession OF the plnUuhs tls
justly T. be Inferred. trol NE language OF tue cot
pant, that all Tie moneys deposts with the defend
nave tecn pad OUT hut tina some OF these money
have not been "du.y or prop'tF pad Ou' I4e stat
meat mat no more tlan a car;ain gu mas been uuN
ana properly PAID out may larry D. II Ied as 90
aren't 10 an affirmation th' the reud4nleI, It
all paid ont. hos not breu "dulv ana properly" pald
ont. tAIs construction OF tue LAM laSe Of inc cou
plant S co'iec A'a u loDows tA't Tue VO'upa J'es
apprse dctnddnt or tue SPECIFIC demands OF
adversary. IL i rus that tHe CON dlit Informs me
Defendant mat The pIdhtns clam Is That, having
"duy aud properly" pali out from the ptnnun ;
mains indebted To the plaintiff Tor the balance.
Wy now the plaintiff claims tIat TINS balance IS
thnt unlv certain portion Of tie moneys IN
tne defendants hands has pali out does not APP
pear. Is the defendant anywhere III tne complaint
49, tt,1t ia IA . 80 v5tcrs s,ci a vIst amonnt
OF moneys passed through the defendauVs hands,
49, me ,yich bro If The miami f's nave been
aisburscd uv il, the defendant j. entitled 10 know
where puuuf 81 aims tat any error or mistake mas
oclnrca Ia is account OK whether any what. I'M
UropcIayrents nave zen tuude l. was urged upon
argument that the deienuaut knew precisely what II
had rtevcd and wua' IL had p1 out. ana tn1t there
fore TIE order asked necessary ~ enable
the defendant The answer 20 tns argutn ut
seems that the provisions OF The Code the Court
may at any bill Of particulars, and tIut II
s no tht just TO defendant II he Is entitled to
the bill OF particulars at al that ne should have IL De
fore answering order thal he may narrow the issue
between hn ANA the plant down 10 the precise polnt
involved III tue controversy. Tn, Will not only AID the
defendant ~ making specific answer Dut VII greatly
fd1IJdVc the Court ii Inc u apIsI1iOH U 1uc cs1aC
reference made On the argument 10 the TACT
that Il would De nai'IshIp 20 iho pihiIn 10 compe
To denver Oll oi particulars 10 the deleuudut'
do appreciate the force OF he argument Tue PLAIN
tn must assumed 70 have had good grounds for the
beginning OF ts suit ley not Oul nave tAo accounts
OF its Cu7moe rIan aud County Treasurer win the
defendant hut they have ia their possession the war
rant %, Which the money Deposited the defend
paid out. FrOtn examination o tIOse ac-
counts warrants II must he assn ned that Inc pam
uf has discovered an error OF tradd an Oyerchtrg
meut, winch led 10 TIE Degunlug OF
ths TLe deTcuIduJ hIs pad during the pcrod
embracing tue transactions referred a. Ia INC cOm-
60 54 warrants account of the cIsy, aud
tue aggregate OF TIE payments on thos waFr61ts ITr
would be grossly utj ISL view IT, 10 eompsi the de-
PENDANT answer To 20 Ia triai wltuout knowing
which Que OF Tue S-JJJ WatIal1a 10 Va 10 ~
tue paInuf as improperly drawn, or Mhch poruon OF
$50 'OOJ 81 payments tue plunUh disputes lils
where thc means 81 kdO" lclGc Is eqdaHF
aCcer,lDir 10 bOta p@t5~, nor Wete Tue Las nc lO
peculiarly wItLIn lie knowledge OF tue defendant III
such enc courts nave very justly Ic's'd TO re-
ihr furnishing OF oils % pucuif IL 'hl' cast
Ie ptifcI ars OI tLc pdlntluS demand are
JecuirIy WiJun tHc POSSESSION add kdOWed-e Oi INC
pAIntihs l.vrs, ami qdte apparent 20 he tha'
poSseS>Ou ucteIOlLe wutJ tAe nature OI mat demand
A.. The motion iOr "A bill particulars X therefore
granted costs o. motion. Tie order VIII D. seSJled
Two dap uOuce. &c.,,
the case Ol tut cty Against tue Islcl National btAk
TIE amounts involved were, however. smaller. Tue
total deposits St CjJ1jJ amt Tue an 1dIt Ga 1i
not 10 ave PRO. rry dawn was SJl6J5 AZ JidSe
L.Wreuce grants the m,Nol N tnlt cas- also, tof Tue
reasons stated Ia tne O1Aer'