The New York herald., 1876-03-07
THE TWEED CASE.

yesterday crowded to the DOORS attracted not only by
the Tweed case in which suit brought for the
cry Of S6oOoOoo but by the presence Of Mt Charles
UConor the senior advocate the part Of the people
Mr.. OConor. who occupied seat next his associate,
Mr.. Carter looked remarkably well, considering his
recent and almost fatal attack, and seemed to
take the deepest interest II tho proceedings. He
listened aentivey the evidence detailed by the
witnesses produced the motion by defendants
sci TO dismiss the case though rarely taking part
in any brief discussions that arose. his
nevertheless marked by his usual vigilance.
The first witness called Mr. Edward J. Lewis tho
son-i -in-aw OF Mrs. Watson, who examined at some
length as to the suits against what is known
Watson estate. He, far his knowledge went,
gave the disposition of the property enumerated,
hr Field Intercepted the witness in relation to Mrs.
Wason's written testimony.
Mr. 0Conor objected to the question incorrectly
setting forth what had taken place.
Mr. Field demurred to the statement that nc had
msrepresented anything lie had only read from tho
testimony.
Mr. O'Conor-You had the paper but did not
understand you to read from II, and was present
when the evidence was taken
Mr. Field observed that IL was not his fault If the
counscs memory was detective regard to the testl
mOny.
Mr. oConor-I must take the liberty OF saying that
your representation OF the testimony incorrect.
Some discussion ensued TO whether the witness
could be nlcrrogatcd about a communication he made
10 Mrs Watson about making settlement of tho var
Gus suits.
The next witness examined was Mr. John H. StrahaD,
the counsel for Mrs Watson IN the suits taken against
her estate and described the various interviews he had
had with Mr. o'Conor and Mr Peckham in relation TO
them.
Mr. Isaac s. Barrett, of the Comptroer's ofce, was
examined alter the recess and proved that the Judg
meut against Mrs. Watson in favor OF the city was
Mr. William H. Dykeman also OF the Comprocr's
Office, was next examined and stated that under the
OF 1870 the of $632, 900 worth OF bonds
issued and they we're cancelled as they came IN.
The evidence on this part OF tho case having been
concluded Judge Westbrook intimated that he would
not pass the question OF damages, but that he would
deny the motion to dismiss the complaint
Mr.. Carter submitted that there had been several
lines OF evidence adduced for the purpose OF establish
ing the OF the plaintiff the issue being the point
whether the defendant Tweed guilty OF setting up
and procuring and aiding and assisting in the setting
up OF 1cttous bills aguinst the county OF New York,
ior that the gst oil the charge Counsel reiterated
the grounds of the complaint against tho defendant
aud contended that both by the positive proof already
given and the circumstantla evidence which had been
adduced, the claim made by the plaintiff could not be
disputed any reasonable ground II had been proved
that Tweed Tor long time PRIOR to the Audit act
Supervisor OF the county, and was, presumably ac-
quainted with tho condition OF the countys affairs
There the TACT that after that after the passage OF
that law, there was but meeting of these Auditors,
at which they passed resolution distinctly
susceptible OF the Interpretation that It was
intended there should be auditing of these
bills; that they should be put into the hands of
Watson and authenticated by tho signature OF Tweed.
Counsel submitted that the testimony conclusive
that in Tweed received twenty-five cent
of the principal OF the bill matter how high the per-
centage raised, and that Woodward the dis
trihuting reservoir, and that wherever there was y
Garvcy bill precisely twenty ve per cent OF the principal
deposited in the bank to Twced's account Counsel
also contended that there could be no higher kind of
proof than the fact that the for the plaintiff
gave certain principal which the percentages
made; that this principal, taking the bank deposits
worked out either way percentage or principal and
that no proof offered the other side The only
answer that Mr. Tweed sued for too much
but offer was made to pay on the amount for which
ha ahe ha ltnhla ThA nn nth ff
relieving certain parties from pursuit. provided
they helped the plaintiff TO get at the
principal wrong doer Tho next answer was
that Tweed was Imprisoned for a year and
fined $3.50 and these deiences strongly relied
upon that they objected TO the the plaintiffs
side OF declaration that there defence. The
proof conclusive that none of the bills
audited and they stood wholly improved Tor the de-
iendant Counsel argued that the act Of each OF the
consprators was attributable to all and each. IL had
been contondcd by the defendants counsel that
the defendants counsel thief because he
Judge. lie was not judge, as he dd not audit the
bills Each and every one oi the acts done IN passing
the fraudulent bills was wholly foreign To the act OF
judge.
damages that II the defendants made no audit they left
themselves without legal shield, and consequently the
entire amount on actions OF tort was recoverable
They had furnished value the plaintiff but
c,ud not claim compensation IL was not 10 be sup
posed that any one oI these persons would make
pensation Tor the whole sum claimed.
Mr.. O'Conor then presented the following points
to damages
Itis not material TO inquire whether vindictlvc or
ior the painn claims only the public money unlaw-
fully obiained and simple interest thereon
The notion that weed responsible only for that
share of the moneys which, by his direction or
by with his associates, was delivered TO
himself. rs repugnant TO common and to all
ccptcd notions OF justice Though there be but
satisfaction each wrong doer is liable in action
against him Tor the whole. This is OF the most
iainilar principles Although there be hope of
tanning from Tweed through execution the judgment
81, ooo00 It important that Judgment be gwen
against him Tor the whole amount; Tor IL the painun
recover udgmC against him Tor $1,000 600 only and
should ind and levy property 10 that amount, Con-
molly and Sweeny might clam, with considerable
pausibity, that the pubc had had iull satIsiaclon
thus eNcmpting them from liability. Consequently
the only safe and legal course is to enter Judgment
against each for the whole sum, restraining never
iheess, the collection by execution to the amount
takep as ascertaincd IN each Judgment with interest
What deductions, II any, should bc made from the
entire sum Drawn out OF the bank on the warrants
There was no legal audit or allowance, and, conse.
queny, the entire draft illegal and is in sirictncss
recoverable IN TINS action In equity cases, however
aud IN actions OF tort the general principles of Justice
govern the measure OF damages or the amount be
recovered. Ii the party TO wrong has, the
o the transaction which constitutes such wrong.
some benefit 10 Inc injured party. reasonable and
just allowance for such benefit may be maze IRON the
total amount of the INJURY. This does not from
any doctrine OF sctoa or Ia that nature. IL results
from the reason OF tho thing the loss and injury less
any incidental bcntht, the whole justice can
award as a compensation Tor the wrong suffered.
As tor the cases oi Garveys and lngcrsos bills the
value the public OF anything through them
did not exceed twenty per cent the gross
their bills AS to otier persons the Court would re.
member the testimony, aud that IN did the adj
vantage TO The city amount TO more than thrty.nvc
Per cent II particular individuals as ior instance,
kcyscr or other ul tc wrong dUcrs have claims against
the cty ana county, the STATE or the public ior any
matters not constituting part of the charges Tor when
the warrants mentioned Ia the complaint issued
such independent claims Of the respective wrong
not proper subjects OF sct-oA or counerclaim or
IN any way proper dcducuons IN this action
Judge Wcstbrook tneu rendered HIS decision upon
/ the motion to dismiss The complaint and after re-
ierring in general terms TO the act OF 1873 under which
tho is brought, and to the of
action submitted IN the complaint said u
scarcely necessary Ito inquire whether
each and every avermcnt IN tho complaint
sustained by proof TO the extent charged 10 sum
cent To observe that the o,tyc testimony OF Andrew
j. Garvey, James II. lngcrsoii. John Garvcy JOhn H.
kcyser, George s Miller and Johu kcnnard, OF con
versaons with Tweed and others OF acts and divisions
oi moneys, ana OF additions 30 aud swcllihgs OF Bills
made questions Tor the jury whether not tho COM
plAnt snnIlallN M nod In