The New York herald., 1876-02-03
THE COURTS.
Brooklyn Ring Suits To Be
Tried in Brooklyn.
"REMINISCENCES OF THE GOOD OLD TINES
Interior Life of Ludlow
Street Jail.
4 BEST IN THE PACIFIC NAIL INVESTIGATION

Recently motion was made before Judge Barrett,
Sn Supreme Court Chambers 70 change the place OF
trial from New York TO Brooklyn In the so-caled
Brooklyn Ring suits sgainst Fowler, Lowber and Bliss
who are charged with having wrongfuly obtained from
the Brookly yreasuy nearly $780, 600 tho contracts
Yor building the Brooklyn Reservoir and the construc-
iion Of the Third avenue sewer. The complaints in
these actions have already been published In full
in the HERALD, together with pretty full report OF
The argument on the motion for a change OF venue
Judge Barrett yesterday gave his decision granting the
motion, and giving his reasons for doing in the fol
lowing opinion
FrSL-The question is not whether the defendants,
Fowler, L0wber and Bliss, public officers within
Abe meaning of the constitution, but whether they
were such as contemplated by section l24 OF the
Code. That they public officers In the latter sense
there be no doubt Their duties were essentially
oath OF oce ana TO furnish bonds for the faithful per-
sormance OF their duties permanent water and Sow
erago commissioners laws of 1869, chap o. sec p
..Second-Thc acts complained OF wero clearly done
by these defendants virtue Of their offices" 1t
was wholly from such Offices that they derived the
authority 10 do what charged against them and that
IS the test II is not question OF good bad faith,
and the proposition that the statute covers cases
c nesiec, no, OF rrInc,ne or .u,SsrS on
She contrary II is well settled that even where, in
doing act within the limits or scope OF his authority,
1he officer exercises such authority improperly or
abuses the confidence which the law reposes in him,
se is still entitled to tho protection or tho statute
Il. :
How, 24S Seeley VS.. Berdsall is Johns, 26s; the
People vs. Tweed 10 Abb, " $, 49, which IS directly
IN point is decisive OF this motiOn) Even ALE
nations OF malice and wicked coInbinationn Will not
deprive a public officer of the protection of such
statutes ROW vs. Sherwood, 6 Johns, 109) And upon
principle this is the just rule for otherwise the statute
would always be evaded by moro averment OF bad
faith, G. THAT shcrin levied AS goods, under
execution against b., and did IL in bad faith, well
knowing them TO be AS goods
TRird.-ln of the cases under consideration the
cause OF action in Kings county; In the other
thereof arose here
Poarth-The defendants cannot be deprived Of their
statutory right by joining other parties defendants
The right is absolute and not matter Of judicial dis
rretion IT. therefore public officer be implicated for
acts done virtue oc the suit lar as he Is concerned
be tried in the county where the of action
part thereof aroso ANY other rule would
4end nufy the statute for II would be easy 10
3oin other parties defendants plead bad faith and
that too, without intending TO eYade as for instance,
TO Join with sheriff defendant the paintns in the
ecution VINO directed tho indcmnitors who uphold
the levy.
Ffflh-Lasuy asked TO retain these cases be-
II Is claimed that iar jury trial cannot be had
in Kings county. But that is answer 10 the motion
Issue not been joined and cannot tell whether
PENDANTS may demur The first thing 10 be done is 10
place the causes in the county where by law tho
defendants have right 10 have them. when an Issue
of fact there jonod u will be time enough TO invoke
sub division 2 OF section 126 OF tho Code Mason
Brown 6 How. 4b1 Is not point for the thai
isspe had heTeb joined but 1t is authority for
the rule that motions change the place Of trial for
the convenience Of witnesses can only be made after
Issue Joined The same principle applies TO motion to
change the venue because thore is to believe
10 change the place OF trial TO the county OF Kings is