The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-20
MEMENTO OF THE TWEED RE
CINE.

During portion OF the time that William
M. Tweed was Deputy Street Commissioner ana
Commi ,sioner Of Public Works Edward Marrencr
aud George s. Miller iurnlsned various implements
and materials required In these res. ecuSe depart
ments. IL is claimed that they, with others whose
names do not appear, conspired with Tweed 70
delraud the city III the payment OF their bills.
Suits were commenced some rme ago in
the Supreme Court against the SAID Marrener,
Miller and Tweed 10 recover the sums
thus alleged 10 have been lraudulently oo-
tanned rom the city treasury. There are two
separate actions, The city In the first demanding
Judgment Tor S65O,O00 and IN the second for
$500. 900. According TO the allegations IN the re.
speclIve complaints the process pursued In de-
iraudlng the clty WAS the one that has become 80
familiar TO tne public through the exposure OF the
Ring frauds, the blils ana vouchers being made 20
represent sums largely In excess OF the Just
claims ON being served with q summons and
Complaints. motion was made on benalt OF the
90 enuanls, "a supreme Court Cham lers, before
Juoge Lawrence. ,or ola u particulars. Judge
Lawrence rendered MS decision III the case yes
terday granung the mouon. His reAsons Tor ar
r1yIng ut sucn CONCLUSION are sci iortn IN very
elaborate Dul Clear ma aole opinion. the leading
points OF winch are gwen below.
After reciIlng rue facts OF tue case ana the
modus oporandt through which the money was
obtained rom the city treasury VITA the ate
menL that IN The cUmpaint against Marrener and
Tweed tnero arc tnirtyone different causes OF
require meut that tue cIty should give lull
particulars AS to each " m al eyed 70 be ncttious,
OYerchurged or IN any resprct false or erroneous,
Judge Lawrence CT es large num1er OF cases
showing WY the motion sn0uld DE granted. tie
holds taat upJn such authorities n would oe most
maniieslly unjust 10 require tho Oeendants 70
answer or 10 20 10 trla wItnout Oe,ng informed
more definitely as 10 the Caarge5 thcT are 10 meet
ind tno issues t. be nred. lie tnen cites tie
Code on the suoJect aud holds tnat Ia pro-
VISIONS JusllY tae same cOnclusi0a In me
course OF his opinion nc makes passing atusOn
to decision b, toe Court Ui Appeals Ia the lltcn-
Beecner case wnlcn he CONSUMERS as iuly support
ing tie same view. lie hOlds tDat, were not tne
bul OF particulars asked iOr ranted. tho defend
anis cOul0 Oe cale1 upon 20 deieud everY voucher
Te.erred 10 m the complain aud Oe kept 10 tue
DARK until toe instant Wnen tue voucher IS pro-
ouced Oy tue lalntif at tue trla as 70 the precise
one SnIOn eitneT VI SAID vouchers II 70 be chal-
enged or attached; tnat II would % unjust 10
compel any defendant 70 put IN an answer or 70
20 20 trial ou such an unceTtalnbi that the oD-
Ieos a oil Of particulars 10 to prevent surprise
aL RAJ; That The ue.encant ~ entitled 10 bill
OfpartIculars or ne Il euftiled TO no reheii tnat
suon bill viii enable the defendants 20 know what
tue specific dsnanJ5 against tnem are ana TO au-
swtr accordingly; That n Will also iacliltate the
Court In narrowing The issue, and tnat no injury
can possibly accrue 70 ne city. A 20 the Otber
branch OF tue motion, that the city De required 70
furnish copies OF the bus aud vouchers 70 the
de .endanis, this nc denied.