The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1875-11-29
VOL sXLllL-N0. II.
THE BROOKLYN RING SUITS.


niiss over SOOO,GOa Involved Whole |
some Encct Of Tho suns Good work.
MIR. John T.. Parsons OF this city, to |
shum AttornoT-Gcncra Pratt referred the |
question OF tho practicaby OF institutlng |
suits against tho members Of tho Brooklyn |
Ring to recover money frau1ulently obtained, |
has reported in favor Of legal proceedings. In |
reply to the second question referred to him rs TO
tho propiiety Of the prosecution OF the suits be-
Ing intrusted to CCrroration Counsel Dewitt, Mr.. |
Parsons has reported that there nre GOOD reasons
why he should not be employed. Last summer |
when THE suN called the attention Of tho Brook
1yn taxpayers TO the workings OF the Kingsley |
Ring, and detailed In u series OF articles what
.hfd ,on stolen, many wealthy gentlemen of
both parties determined that thev would sup
pcment the exposures by earnest action. The
nrst transaction which TnH Sun gave ac-
count Of was the Hampstead Reservoir job n
tchcrle to plunder the city Of several millions
of dollars under the guso OF providing a stcr-
age rcservoir on the sands Of Hampstead pl In
Anuthcr transaction was the Third avenue
scwcr. the contract Tor which WA regularly
aware oil to Io'. H. Van wink'e for Sisd.Os; 2j
IlthoaSh Kin aslcv put In tAroo separate ids for
tie work, and according to sir. Van Ninkle's
am lUSit subsequently = tempe to get the con
tract by offering him 5000 to throw It up.
Ont the quani;} Of evidence that was presented
TO Mr.. Parsons by the Law Committee Of the
Br okl raxnayer Ass5ciati M and vhich in
posed in nE SrS, ne rcperted In fayo of suits
based on the tWo specific Transactions sub
miltiug the following chaiEes;
l. Inc ncmtslead stor.ss Reservoir case. cohtrsc,
SIo sad A9rs hsi,nsy asglI sr
sn' sSs'so5 , Tss fTssr I ~ AtS3d
ssarce Of To- RnEiacerin sef the preo.a. were 30
srrsescd irI Ne tcnT q ra1gd dal lwarded that
snoari at sGiSS tRe Nors SS4d have SesS and Could
80 Ih,rL tysrr. e.vcr c..c con,r.c,or ANner y
Keene,. same Wat Comn,ssoncr.. charge; That
rogss % IN o St e.c iee 'i vs Wskc
,ss m @ 'S enr.cct h N 'S eSe t5 to- Obtain
M. than no The worA have been done for uaisr the
now MIR. PARSONS WORKED.
Tn Mr.. Parsons's report to the Attorney Cen
eral h" says that oethinks II the reprcseni.ti 'ns
made to h'm ere true, that in actons brought
fgr the rdrl ose there could be recovered con,
eiderah'c sums 9t mccoy imntouerly rbia'ncd
ASSERT 'ns n sde as ne would those e u private
client. VINO, submitting fAr's, wished 10 know
incd. A. lawyer. in such "a case. ho would
examine the points - i,w involved and II he
thoucht the claim eoud ne sustained hs would,
wlho IT knowing the defence or explanation.
advi-e the Prosecution. lie adds that ne has
not thought II within his employment 70 heor
rcprcs, nations e1plana'ory or Otherwise, and
as n" col not examine 10 their trith h had
plica,ed. on account ~ tho rotations *. ting
between certain members IT the combination
Mr.. Ptscns advises against him as the prose-
On receiving Mr. par,onss repo,t Attorney
General Pratt wrote to the Hon. G.. :. Fairchd,
Attorney General elect. enclosing written au-
pro,cdution. and asking Mr. Farchlll to cot in
She Go,ernor's apptovh, i he WIS Ia thu oity;
authority to Sir. Parsons Tho authorization
was received On Friday II gives MIR. P'ri.ns
eral In suils 70 he insiitued under chnptcr 80 Of
the session laws Of is.j 10 recover pun!,c mon
eys at q property which have without rishs been
obtainct ard received from the city. Mr. Par