Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1875-07-14
HEARING ON THE CASE OF
WILLIAM M. TWEED.
Reasons why his Bail should be
Reduced.
Sharp Arguments on both Sides--COntin.
ned Tomorrow.

New York, July 10. Charles O'Connor and w.
ii. Peckham appeared before Judge Barrett in the
Supreme Court chambers to-day, counsel for
the people, in obcoieLCe to an order to show cause
why the order for arrest in the new SC, 100000
suit against VIM. NJ. Tweed should not be vaca-
ted or the bail be reduced from Sd, 900 900 to a
reasonable sum. David Dudley Field and Field
Jr., appeared for defendant.
The points submitted for the motion to yaCate
reduce, were as follows:
IA defendant once arrested in civil acton
cannot be again arrested for the same cause of
action, except under circumstances not arising
here. Defendant has been already arrested and
held to bail in 81 600, 900 for the same cause of
action. and the first suit has not been discontin-
ued.
2-The present suit is vexatons and malicious
suit
3-The order for arrest and the attachment
should not be allowed in the same suit.
THE athdavits are insufficient, being either
on hearsay and argument or statement of accom-
plices.
5-The complaint intends to show $o32 $3.50
traced to defendants hands; summons Is for re-
lief and action is for damages.
6-The court of appeals have decided that the
people have no cause Of action.
Bail is excessive and contrary TO the consti-
tuition.
S--If allowed at all bail should b, reduced to
reasonable amount.
Mr.. Peckham argued for the people, and put in
afidavits.
That the costs of discontinuance of the old suit
had been rendered to det. since the present order
was granted. He described the def. the
leader of gang of public thieves who alone
remained after discovery, relying on old methods
of fraud to defeat justice.
Mr.. Peckham, in concluding his al gument, said
the motion was made on mere technical tiles,
without any denial of deft's guilt.
lie proceeded to argue that the cause of the
action is not the same as the lngerso suit brought
by the county, i'll which the court of appeals said
there no cause of action, for here the State
sues by right extended by the act Of 1879, and
suit cannot be ycXaious unless the cause of action
is the same. If the order disseminating the In
gersoll suit without the payment of costs, was IL
regular the remedy was to move, to set aside, and
if the costs were not paid, as prescribed BY law,
it was because defendant wilfuly neglected to tax
his costs. Plaintiff has rendered defendant
his costs, and that is sufficient. Arrest and at
tachment may co-exist, especially where no levy
is made, as IN this case. Counsel cited authori-
ties to show that in civil the amount of bail
is the amount of the debt sworn to and endorsed
on the writ, and commented on the omission to
deny plaintiff Legation, that plaintiff intended
to flee jurisdiction, and the omission of any de
NAL of debt dispute as to the amount. Plain
tffs therefore, had right to hold defendent in
seven millions of dollars, and the Idge signing
the order did great wrong when he figured the
bail at S3,O00,0O0. In Connelly's bail was Re
duced, and he fled, as defendant would If be had
an opportunity. The counsel commented on the
great mis- chief wrought by defendant IN the com
inunity, and the auoacty in the present motion,
and declared that he felt no apprehension of the
hands that there could be any other answer to the
motion than a denial.
David Dudley Field VIII reply for defenlent
tomorrow.