The New York herald., 1876-12-13
The Fight Against Forfeiture of
Tweed'S Bail Bonds.
TWeed'S Travels and DeVlin's
Discontinue.
Trickery and Penance In Divorce
Proceedings.
The Tribune's" Needles Piercing
the Sun"

The dight from this city OF William II. Tweed and
his soourn abroad did not bring dscom1ture alone to
Sheriff Conner. but a discouragng drawback to
his surees tho bail bonds gwen in the early stages
OF tho ltigous prosecutions instituted against tho
head and tfront OF the new Court House Ring Mr..
Charles Devn, the bosom friend OF the ex Boss
and who regarded the latter his patron saint,
surety on i've bail bonds given AS guaranty for Mr.
Tweed's appearance at fhe Court Of Oyer and Ter
miner TO answer Ave criminal indictments found by
the Grand Jury that tribunal These bonds gwen
February 20, 1879, but through the strategic
maneuvres OF counsel tho trial OF the was
postponed. On the 18th Of December, 1875,
Tweed called for trial, but Mr.. Tweed
had meantime changed his mind In regard to standing
trial, and also had changed metropolitan air for
congenial cliines across the The result was a
declaration Of forfeiture OF the bail bonds. This
not satisfactory to Mr. Devln and he took tho ground
that he could not be held for the produc-
tion OF Mr.. Tweed, as he had been deprived OF his
custody through his escape from tho Sheriff. The
various legal proceedings that have been instituted
since with view TO test the question OF the liability
OF Ar. Devln have been given In the HERALD A lew
DAYS since an order to chow canse why the Judgment
entered the recognzances should not be vacated
was granted and the case came up for argument be-
fore Judge Brady, in Supreme Court. Chambers. A
decision in the case was gwen yesterday uy Judge
Brady, the following being his opnion:-
The order iorieiting the recognzances against Mr..
Dcviin and the certiorari to remove the proceedings
were signed within few minutes OF euch other and
before order hed in the County Clerks Office.
The rccognizauce and certified copy or the order of
forfeiture, though It formed Judgment record did
scosne a lien until flied in the olicc or the County
Cers, and before this done stated the cert,o
isri was signed. The effect OF the latter process
"a stay the proceedings ard the record OF tho judg
ment was u violation of this result thereupon This
&c, Was not desIgnedy but lnnocently done The effect
o 'no ruling however, was TO make y Judgment OF
tie Common Pleas, aud Of this Court; and this
Court. while on motion II may declare in reference
10 tho proceedings had that tho Judgment as a
record ana lien was unauthorized, cannot declare
It imperative Tho remedy is an application
10 tue Court OF Common Pleas The proceedings on
the part OF Mr. Devhn in the Court OF Oyer and Ter
miner, were TO prevent the judgment, believing that
under the facts disclosed be bound produce
hs principal ana, enable him test the question:
the cerorar was allowed. The learned Justice then
presiding in that court confirms this statement the
counsel Tor Mr.. Devlin. The General Term has since
declared that the order OF forfeiture was properly
entered and that the proceedings that court wore
duly authorized and right The Judgment, ne verthc
less, entered by mistake. not authorized because
OF the stay mentioned. This Court, q how
ever IN tho proceeding cannot set aside It
Is not . judgment Of this Court The remedy here
must be by action. How far the subsequent a11rma-
tion OF the order OF forfeiture by tho General Term OF
this court would affect the relief sought Is q matter
not necessary now to be discussed