New-York tribune., 1876-05-19
BRESEAN'S BiLLS RLJECTED.

Il yFEpIcr FoUyD FOR TIE CITY FOR $3J.G13 35.
The suit Of Matthew +. Beman against the
civ which Ils been on tr.p To- week before judge
Van U,escu n Common Pleas, Trial Term, ended ycstcr
day with verdict for The ciiy for T'5,Gl3 3D. TX
sheriff Brennan presented bin for nine months services
In 1877 o. the county amounting 10 nearly S5d,0OO
This lin aB duly audi. "a hy the Supervisors when tho
revolution IN city politics and the Consolidation act pre-
vented payment aud tins s1t was brought. Tho city
did not contest arg, portion ~ tne claim, amounting
10 over $1,000 but did contest Two classes % charges
TIE fret class oi reports purporine To have been
IntGo to the secretary "i state - criminals g." Iclrd
which, 70 WIS r'umtd, was cX, e'ri "s io il "dNtr
criminals and wholly Li-c s 10 tig police court 'pnllc-
tons. The other class hclud'i tho chl.Hci Tor
conveying criminals 10 prisons "u'oi lhlh Ihr
f.aIe Prison, where the claim wa, tnat he
about 2OODU rrs ErtS sent u th' pcniicntiaty and
Icunnatunes from Police tOVr.s, NOT one of whom hc
had conveyed or pad for oon rJns 1ud had 0yrsaicd
The uuubrr tua. hc bad taken nom me higher courts
Goug further tho city claimed tlat IN The TrcyoIs year.
Is7I by snllar ui,roprcacut TONS ho plaiuu nad oh
tanned over $4,000 more tnah me N'' en'iid TO- ana
this rNcsSsyo payment 10 claimed tG recover from Br n
nan, win interest, after d,dnctng ne $4,000 wnen 10
did not dispute ~ h. bIlN Tor 81 lhe Phht thrown
on tle defense insisted tua 7 reports 10 'he Secretary
oi state included supplemental rcpoHs which had not
been put In evidence, aud ih'' ~ mo conveyance oi
prisoners he had only charged according 10 prrscrptyc
right, being responsible and hIIne done pari ~ the
work and nat The drruEiugiinn OF 10" 30 nd % super
visions yts final gnd could not De inquired into
Judge Van Hooscn charged thdt tho bnls related TO
county matters ana counJ cEtrfes ana mo Bo'd of
suucrysors Had right o tx the rutc Of cndrgc for
them. and the absence Oi 4dud tho anti of tLc
Board of -uer pr TO thy Of ihe payments
10 br made would be nnai and conclusive. Tue
thus reduced iO question whether these bills were
fraudul-ut-Whrhcr thcy were knowingly fal-o when
presented and such the Supervisors Todld not haNo
passed. uHlcss pfaouccd on br ff"ui aud deceit The
burden MAS tnr drfrndtuN 10 show fraud In toe
plrinaG. aud tho jury, ON the evidence, must
decide whether The bills were false IN ;ho
resports obargod-whcthor tho pianun knew when
bN presented them tLat they wore false aud
vhotlcr he could have aaceraiqed the truth
from facts nt hand by reasonable inquiry II he could,
aud presented his bill With intent 10 obtain money no!
due nm from tho county, 10 was fraud, and the friudu-
lent Items the bs ~ 1872 must De rejected and tha
CITY entitled to reclaim tho fraudulent portions ut
tH0 bills pad fOr 1871. There question before the
fury whether tho rates were unrraspuabctho Super
ys0rs had The power o establish thuse nor whether tho
IFS office lucrative unpTo1abe nor vhe ether
hG should D0 paid sa'tiy lust al OF iursihe law had
decided that about tho Ring frauds. Mr. BrcnnAns
claim must stand ou ta merits, aud not on those OF
Tword Connolly or bwoCnoy or Hall Tho only quos-
toD whether tDoso bills fraudulent, and II
t0 what cItont
Tho jury found for tho City ~ full claim. A. j. Wander
pool aud John n. -rhan appeared for tho plaintiff
Jamos q. Carter ior tho CITY.