New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-01-12
THE COURTS.
THE ONE MILLION TWEED SUIT.

ARGUMENTS or TIE DEFENsE FOR QUAsiilSG TIE
STRUCK JURY PASEIr-AsOrHER CLERICAL ERROR
The hearing of the challenge to the array OF
struck jurors in the second million suit against
Tweed was suspended for half an hour yesterday to
enable Mr. Poekham to make motion for the striking OF
now jury in the six million suit This motion was
before Judge Barrett but Mr. Peckham began
to read the adayts used the motion for the fist
struck Jury Dudley Field protested that the DEFENDANTS
counsel not served with tho order to show cause
This obooton being overued after considerable discus
sion as they had been served weeks he asked
"a hours TO reGxamne them and answer them, as the
aspect Of the suit had changed meanwhe and. despite
Mr. Carriers protest that time important to avoid
throwing the the February term Judge Barrett
granted the delay.
Tho challenge 10 the array OF Jurors IN the other suit
was then tkken up before Judge westbrook. William r.
Douglass OF tho persons the list Of "a rora tos
tilted that bs home was In Queens County, whore he
voted aud taxed but hc spent the greater portion OF
his time this city, though not IN business here lie had
been excused last year by tho Commissioner Of Jurors
hut bad been summoned this Winter ordinary Hat
Of petit jurors. Julius Can, described ON the list a.
Julius W. Ca,n, testified bis julius Cstiin and
lie WAS ordinarily described Julius Catn, ir. g. d.
Babcoc Of the elisors testified that he had made
search for The original list made b. himself and judge
Peabody 81 Tie - names without success IL was rot IN
the County Clerks ONCE nor IN nis possession. 49,.
Mr. Field presented the general objections submitted
ny uo other suit and overruled ny judge west
brook. and. "a - the special objections In llH SUM-
ella med that whIie would lm.Hfe intentional
rou- bias e. the c.ors in placing 10 names stricken
from previous jury list by the parties they he'd been
guilty Of mabchavior Substantially they had deprived
tie parties Of the right tu strike of II JUROR aud being
wansd at certain parties not most Indifferent"
had chosen them That and the selection of two names
from firm, made urdonhcdy through mere want OF
notice by the .iisnr could receive the judicial
ton. "A 81 III. Caiwcl. Mr. Field argued that the
failure Of the Comm >siouer or Jurors to give notice 20
the County Ccrk Of his exemption could rot be aowcf To
DEPRIVE the defendant - ne "a Jurors bonn tho Court had
decided should De tire list. MI Douglass he argued,
wrv not within The mcln.ng ~ me law allowing non
residents 10 ~ Jurors Mr.. tat's lnisnnpicr was
IN al FrSpacfs similar O. that OF NJ. rOnthWChs which
had pa s-rd GA in the other case.
Sr Carter. reply. claimed mat IN View of The con
cessi,u Of TIE mIaif-t n the ci7ofs an0 The excel
Icucr ~ srlrct ted by them the GU spn coud
only rdel tcchuic@llti Mr.. Douylf-s, " was
conceded substantially, vas e liable ldsdf. 'hc clhrrs
na alsn clifei rightly inc st. HUf even n one
Ns-r not the law PLAINLY oJnCtnpa.rd tiitf there vas
possibility OF less thAH - app arns Ia ansWor TO me
sUiTn.. aGd or suC u cause, Naef" Hl sipNiafliii III
ii.frr was done the court uncss compelled ny ehtn
ilfs rule Of law should NOT liaI tie prOcrc iinSs.
ud.c Wc-ibroDK reserved us decision I'll tbIs morning
.: 1 o'clock