New-York tribune., 1876-01-22
THE COURTS.
TIE BROOKLYN RING SUITS.

! THE BROOKLYN RING SUITS.
| ARGUMENT BEroaY JUDGE BARRETT IN REGARD Tc
CnANGE or vESuE-rHE MOTION DISMISSED
BY DEFAULT N THE CAsEs OF KINGSLEY AMI
KEENEY DECISION RESERVED CoNCERAIN0
FOWLER AND LOwBER.
The arguments on the application for q
change OF tho suits against Messrs Fowler and
Lowber OF the old Brooklyn Water Board were heard
yesterday before Judge Barrett In Supreme Court Cham
bers Gen Pryor and Mr. Jones appearing for the defend
ants and slr. Parsons for the people Gen Pryor. in
opening the argument said Here two iictlons to
money OF which, 1t is alleged the City OF Brook
lyn has been defrauded BY the defendants- In each
the motion 10 made behalf OF the defendant 10
change the place of trial TO the County Of Kings.
and the motion proceeds the provisions OF
Section 124 Of the Code These actions are brought TO
get back money said have been obtained from the City
Of Brooklyn by fraud OF the defendants but 1t s not
pretended that 1.-THE defendant Fowler received one
penny Of this money Possibly the only question In
tenton is this Do the complaints show that these nct
done by him In virtue OF his office The nrs com
plant alleges tnat the defendant Fowler together with
the defendants Bliss and Lowbcr constituted Board or
Water and Sewerage Commissioners Ia the Guy or
Brooklyn, and such officers carried into execution the
construction OF the Hampstead Reservoir; and IL IL al
legged that these gentlemen in Disregard Of their duty did
not let the work upon the most favorable 10 the
citizens os Brooklyn did not award the contract to the
lowest responsible bidder but the contrary awarded
IT frauduenty to the defendants, Keeny Kingsley and
recover back about Si650OO this suit is brought The
second complaint relates to the Thirdsvo sewer. and
alleges that after awarding the contract TO Van Winke,
tho lowest bidder the Commissioners aferward took II
from him and iIaudnenty awarded 1t to Messrs keeny
Kingsley for $4,000 more than 1t would have cost If
done by Van Wnke and for the recovery OF this amount
action brought Following the principal points
Ga, Traf
Fowler was public officer when the causes
Of action accrued and lie IL public onicer
second. tho alleged causes OF action arose in the
County Of Kings Thd expunge the acts done b. Fowler
virtue of his Office member OF the Permanent Board
OF Water and Sewerage Commissioners, and there WIZ
not be lei the pretenso OF cause OF acton against MN
80. too the Tnrdivo. suit the recission ~ the cor
tract with Van Winkle AMI the awarding IL at hl$loI
price to the defendant KeeUey iute the very gst
oi Tie ~ ton fonrth though the people sue tDe 30.
County.
At tie end OF Gen. Pryor's argument question
concerning e appearance o tie dei"ndants IN the suits
As Messs. Kingsley and keeney were not represented
by counsel Mr. Parsons asked for dismissal OF motions
by default, IN accordance win WEIGH tIe motions Tor
change OF venue In their cases were dismissed ny ouei
Mr.. Parsons then spoke In behalf OF the people IN an
swer 10 Gen. Pryor. He sail tho motions Ge.ore the
that tbs place oi trial oI the action agaEst him be
changed. he claims that he public officer and thai
for change OF on the SOund that Ie was public
oicer aud that the cause of action arose exclusively In
The ground that then eOdecn l.its wcTetial s taat
Lowber and Fowler pubic officer IN tbe CITY OF
Brooklyn. M P,i here read an aii dylt Ot Ma
thaui COthen. who dcpAs "a that he familiar with
tho ydriOns laws and ordinances OF the Hempstetd
seryOir ncee: lac had examined the records Of
the Water Board organized W act or April locJi also
te of OF 1870 In iciCgcncc - the Wafer aud wer
sstDu, Of which The defendants, Fowler ana Bliss,
members aud tie abolition oi these commits os la
1872 by the creation OF IA Department OF Public
WOlks. Ia accordance with this examination
M CJtreu declares that IL IL not tr" that tue OF
action arose IN the County OF Kings ho alleges thai the
defendants combined In scc.Dc procure an act Oi Co
Legislature for supplying tIo CITY Oi BrOOkln win
NaicI. aud By sucn sclcme the City OF Br0Oklyn was
deiraurd ~ lar~r Of money. The aiiil,it closed
with tau expression OF the belief Of the eInent that
flr impartial trial ooni not DO had In the County Of
Kings.
in rioionce 10 tho statement that the DESCENDANTS had
received money, Mr. Parsons cl,imo taat thcy had
Obtained adyan results fgUm their ar.lOn either
prcunAriY politically, or otherwise. He claimed thal
So ua ~ court knew Fowler resident Of the
IL, aud County New-YOrk. He declared that thos,
defendants could be sued any OF thcm public OH
crs hut individuals and actng under the color Of an
Office was entirely diif,nt from acting by virtue Of a
Office In regard lU tic.3Ts LowDer AND Diss there cOui
not public OihccIs within tho meaning Oi
srctiOn l2t OF the Code. Furthermore, Ilrgt
portion OF the action In Ncw-iOrk, and OF tht
people who sued :. number were residents OF Tue
{ q aud County of NawNOfE. Mr. Pars0ns claimed In
conclusion i the defendants had sncl INFLUENCE IN the
b. haa I'm the of Kings Tor although ten honest
Jurors mght b. ilned tm're wOuld probably b two
VINO wer. Dishonest ANA although eleven honest Jurors
ht bo oUtiued there would probably DO ono wAO Mas
dishonest.
Tue court reserved ts decision.