New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-03-03
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
TWEED,S DEFENSE.


COUNSEL FOB THE PROPLE-TEsTIMoNY OF
RICHARD O'GoRMAN AND OTHERS.
The room in which the trial of the suit
against william NJ Tweed for $6,OOO,OOO is going on,
before Judge westbroOk, was crowded yesterday
than on any previous day In part this caused by
rumor that Tweed himself wOuld appear; In part b
the fact that the testimony to he given ws Of lawyers
who hac taken part il. tie compromises and arrange
ments 81 18Th Tweed did not appear, but an almos;
equal Sensation the temperance OF Charles OConOr
in the morning session. his taking complete charge
the case to the extent of overriding IN the after
noon what Mr. Peckham and Mr.. Carter had done in the
morning After his appearance, the room was over
crow ed to the end.
Mrs. Garvey, the wife o. Andrew j. Garvey, the
trst witness for Ike defense yesterday Her testimony
was that tbEexposure Of 1871 she fed with her hus
band and returning before him, Mr.. O'COnor, who
said her husband could home without molesatiOn
and he would hear his story and she at cent for her
husband
Richard OGorman Corporation Counsel from January
1885, TO January, 1879 the next witness. His di
rect evidence that in October 1871 he began two
suits aganst Tweed behalf of the city and
behalf OF the county, the latter being the one oil
which he relied, and the city suit being only
brought from excess OF caution. Similar suits
were brought against Connolly, Han, and others
Those suits were certainly brought in good faith and all
proceedings in il conducted in the utmost good
faith In bringing these SUITS he was greatly embar-
raised by legal questions to his right 10 bring any
suit questions first suggested to HIM In the Foley sut The
proceedings In that suit had first convinced him that
there were frauds requiring be looked into by
some competent officer. He got at last verbal orders
from Mr.. Hail. who was Mayor OF the city and exofcio
President OF the Board of Sup -visors. Mr.. Hall
gave the directions in his usual dashing way
and directed suit among Others against himself.
The theory Of his complaint that the public officers
were trustees Of the public and any moneys they wrong
fully received they held for the city The evidence he
expected 70 derive from the Defendants from such mat
terra might from time to time, and he might add
Mr. Green told him that Mr.. Flden had made thorough
examination Of the defendants accounts. The face
he complaint showed what demanded but a. be un-
derstood t. each complaint only demanded what the de
PENDANT had guy received, AMI did not ask at
each be held responsible for the whole amount stolen
The cross-examnation then directed TO an inter
view with Gen. Bail w and Mr.. Peckham on behalf OF
the Committee Of Seventy. He claimed that Mr.. Peck
ham had demanded of him the Of his name to bring
such suits be should please and he had declined to
make slch confession OF incOnpeency. He had offered,
II Mr. Peckham showed hun facts warrantng any sun,
two occasions directly denied the correctness OF
Nj O,SOrmlns statements, ana upea 0,.eh DS qIes ,
During this portion OF the cross examination,
Mr.. OCOnOr in, looking little, II any, different from
tie day when he tried fOve referee the suit against
Wasons estate. The DISCRIMINATION then turned on
Mr. O(fOrlnhus VIII ONOnoT, out
Mr.. OCOnor though speaking occasionally 10 Mr. Carter
and mr. Peckha with apparent sb lpness took no part
In the examination and left A. soon ne Mr. OOr-
mans testimony closed, the court took recess
After recess OCODOr returned and took control OF
the plantf case. George rcknOr Curtis was called to
the stand and the first question objection was
made Mr. OConOr at once proceeded To argue the Oh,
lection He had surprised, he sad at the course OF
the examination OF Mr.. 0GOTnan. or couree no blame
was 10 be attached 10 the Court that 1t had not excluded
such testimony when no objection taken. and bis
assocates were excsable they might have thought
that II was shorter TO let II in than 10 fight against IT,
But they were 10 try Mr. OGOrmln's good ialth IN
bringing the suits would take longer than the man Issue
AMI IT was utterly Irrelevant The only question was
strictly one OF law Was this suit properly brought ul-
der the act Of 1870 Notwithstanding any and all suits
previously brought Alter . reply FROM Mr.. Field,
claiming that the unconstitutional, Judge West
brook ruled out all further testimony this point ON
the ground that the evidence stood he must assume
the suits 20 have been brought In good faith. .
RUFUS IT, Andrews WIS thon called 10 show that Mr..
TIlden had promised Connolly Immunity In 1871 II he
would resign his COntrOlefphip. Mr.. QCODOr again
objected calmln that MIR. Tbden then bad no right TO
make such promises and that promise 10 one rogue or
Thief not TO prosecute him had been held Ia dis
charge his associate r0gueA The court permit the
questions 70 be put but Mr.. Andrews knew Of no such
promise Mr.. Field then put In evidence copy OF the
Judgment roll in the Ci,ys suit against Watsons estate
In which the city recovered Judgment Tor ONLY F64s
though Mr. Pied claimed the papers showed that there
was S25s 600 more which migh have been recovered.