New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-10-15
THE COURTS.
THE SUIT AGAINST TWEED.

A STAY pENIED-TwEED To PLEAD To-Day AND
TRIAL or THE CIVIL SUI IN NOVEMBER MADE
POSSIBLY.
Judge Lawrence, in Supreme Court, Cham-
hers has denied the motion made on behalf OF william
NJ Tweed to stay proceedings until the decision OF the
Court Of Appeals is made on appeals taken by him from
the orders OF the General Term refusing to grant MN
bill of particulars. order that the complaint nc
amended and that the order OF arrest he modified
Judge Lawrence his decision mainly on the grouu
that tho orders appealed from not seaaoie 10 tine
Court Of Appeals and in part on he ground that the
General Term has already passed on the question Aer
an ally zing the motion. Judge Lawrence says:
The granting of the stay Of proceedings upon TINS ap
neal rests in the discretion Of the Court and The question
ior determination is whether the papers before me
proper cas- is made out for the exercise OF the discretion
AIRY power. One OF the orders appeu rom n fIc
defendant bill OF particulars. Tire granting OF PHI M
rtieulars in tse discretion al tie Cour au
cn of tc court below are appcaahlc 70 the Court or
Appcals This has been held ~ numerous cases ana IA
the Of Ton aSiSeeeher ttsth h0~Sp pd i rot
The Court OF Appeals held that they w9ao ho'
crcon should grant refuse bill OF particular. ihT
appcal in that entertained solelI on ~ kU
- powe- 10 40 so In the light of this decision would
10 h. improper to grant stay so Tar az Ihe
relates thu order refusing bill oil parucuars' ~ u
apaTen. bat snGh -, an s ppoi si Dob"Ine denied The
motion on The part OF defendant to strike out paris OF
the complaint As TO this part OF tae ordeI y %o,g ~ tb
I'm section Of the Code of Procedure that there can be
mo appcal AS II seems from the authorts cited
thai no part orders OF the sth OF October axe re
yievahle Court of Appeals, and mar sad appts
rsa be dismissed by that Court think tha u Woulu I've
improper grant the say apphed i1r. an "i"ci
for in and az appeal, which the ApPelnsc cot
frequently declared II onid iio en-
tcrtain would TO he au uuWarIantaDe cAe''is VI
power - ,....on. =, .,,o
opuou delivered the settlement or these ORDERS, mas
exuPE4d III opinion virtually the questions SUP
united for my consideration IL has declared tldI aS
there WAS no stay of proceedings by the order apPael
from she strict legal result 81 ihe reversal OF nat oH'
WAS that the defendants time 60 answer or bhur htu
exptrCd AMI after discussion on TIE settlement On 'IS
order te General Term granted Ia the defendant s"Va
DAYS i'm which l., answer stgtD2 that such provision
,y0uld leave the plaintiff Sufficient time 10 nOuce 'he
catts. f0i trial at the November Circuit. -.
The effect Of granting stay would practic1iy Nc. 10
So; at uanght the order Of the aqpllat oIr nde hter
a ful examination of tie case and AFTER nearing TIE %
tes so faf application Tor STAY fciaeS 10 tuG
ntdcr affirming the order Of MI. Justice Bnrlttt lr'
my self obliged deny the motion on thc ground that th'
General Term has by It's opinion ana deesiOn aoFe &c
f.ried 10, left alternative As cannot grant tuc
stay without assuming 10 qualify or nody condl'iohs
deliberately imposed by the General Term altel nearing
| am Obliged to deny the motion.
An order was thcTeupOn entered denying the MOTION
The effect Of this order is to compel Tweed to serve his
answer to-day The then be noticed or trial Tor
November ana having by law preference can be tired
M that month The will probably, however, NOT be
actually tried till after the oh of November, when the
of AuIc.llS meets