The New York herald., 1876-10-20
THE COURTS.
Argument on the Appeal in the
Tweed $6,O00,OOO Suit.
Strenuous Legal Efforts to Obtain for the
BOSS New Trial.
PENALTY OF WIFE MURDER.
Francis MCGUIRE. Sent to State
Prison for Life.

While William N. Tweed pursuing his travels
abroad, and, as he fondly imagined from
lestaton under the cloak OF his DISCUSSES the great
suit to the stolen millions he had fraudulcnty
obtained from tho city treasury tried before Judge
westbrook in this city. This the suit popularly
designated the So 600 900 suit although the actual
sought recovered So, los 957 s5 and,
is well KNOWN verdict was rendered for the iull
amount claimed including interest besides the grant
ing OF 500 coo allowance to the counsel who had
vigilantly fought the to this nnal result Mr..
Tweeds counsel were satisfied however, with this
termination OF tho trial a motion made for
new trial and most zcalously argued, but
Judge Nesibrook refused to grant it., as
also to change his determination the
subject OF the extra allowance. or course
II would not do TO give 1t up So long there
any possible chance of the appellate taking any
different views of the case, and appeal taken
10 tho Supreme Court, General Term, such appeal
being thrccfold in charactcr-appcals from Tho
judgment on the verdict. from the order denying
ton for trial and from the order granting
allowance. Tho argument in these appeals was beard
yesterday by Chief Judge DAVIS and Judges Brady
Daniels and while Mr. Tweed nearing the of
his land conflicting issues in this great trial
nearing their 1nal Judicial determination. Mr..
Dudley Field, who appears TO DO lighting single
handed the legal battles OF 'rhe old man."
made tho opening argument. In opposition there
appeared Mr.. Charles O'Conor, Wheeler II. Peck
ham and James G. Carter Although the taking
done by tho latter two gentlemen Mr. O'Conor
Bat and patiently listened through the long drawn out
arguments both sides, apparently taking quito
interest in the opposing points presented The gen.
oral features Of trial yet forgotten IL oc
cupicd several weeks, and resulted IN verdict of
S6,53I lis IS
The rsl point raised by Mr. Field was that the chal.
lnnr II, fhp nj hn JV,
sisted that the lists from which the jury selected
the original lists OF the jurors selected by tho
Commissioner OF Jurors and that these lists did rot
include all tho Jurors liable 10 lie next insisted
that all the jurors incompetent aud in support of
this position cited portions from the examination of
each, in which that he had formed oplnion
another that he hnd formed u strong bias against
the painun, another that IL would require
evidence to remove his decided opinion in
the case, another that he considered Tweed bad man.
nnd on through the whole list From this he drew
the conclusion OF law that II juror who is evidently
basscd prejudced twhcthcr he admits 1t not be-
competent by the mere fact Of his swearing that
he becvcs he can act impartiay in spite OF his bins
then tho tests hitherto applied to ascertain the compe
tency Of jurors have been idle. and the whole system
must changed. Next order he proceeded to dis
cuss OF The mutudinous exceptions taken the
testimony during tho progress OF the trial After
cupyng cou siderable time showing the grounds upon
which such exceptions taken, he insisted,
further, tbat the Court erred IN refusing TO
rharro ynrious rconesls IIo conten,,ed thai |
there proof 10 warrant tho Jury In charging
the defendant with the warrants drawn IN favor OF
Archibald Hall, Jr. and seven Others, or any one Of
NO proof MS 10 auy Of these items aud they were all
left 10 conjecture; That all were included in tho
dict Of the ury that IN any event no portion OF these
sums could be charged against tho dofcndan except
much could be traced 10 his hands; that before
the jury could x any liability upon Tweed they must
0nd conspiracy between him aud Watson; that there
proof that The conspiracy incudet the for |
gcrics amounting 10 s2,0764l -, and that they |
should have bccn Withdrawn from the consideration Of
the jury that there was no proof whatever that tho
alleged conspiracy included forgery OF that any
forgery in any authorized by or known to tho
defendant; that there beng such proof they could
not be recovered upon; that they must deduct tho |
collected from keyscr; that they must deduct
the paid Garvey Tor building Connoly's house,
that the certificate of audit was prind dcie proof OF tho
correctness OF the bills and each bill must be assumed
TO have been valid until tho contrary is established;
that II judicial act that audit was unneces-
snry nnd n, on,ss,on created no resumption against
the correctness OF the bills; that recovery be
bad whom certificate OF audit was signed that Tweed
acted az public officer, and thai the plaintiffs can re-
cover no more than Is traced 10 Twecd's bands la
conclusion he claimed that the allowance was un
reasonable.
Mr. Pcckham in reply, con,cndcd that the decision
OF tho Court on the chaichse TO the array was mere
question OF fac; cannot be reviewed; that tho owl
dcpcc to tho lists from which the jury selected
shows n substantial compliance with the law by the
Commissioner OF Jurors; that the statute TO the
making OF the lists was not designed to secure an i'm
partial jury, but To paraliy distribute tho burden
Of jury duty that suitor cannot object that
It's dcailr nave not been observed; TINT the
proceedings in filling the Jury BY tnicsmen summoned
by the Coroner and tho ovcrrung OF the challenge
array returned by Coroner Eiingcr legal and
regular; that there error in the admission Of
evidence tracing the money 10 the defendant that
there was no error the charge OF the
Court or in the disposition OF the various
motions made by the defendants counsel lie then
went o say that there are in the
Der of exceptions 10 questions TO witnesses. The
learned Judge who presided tho trial devoted The
greatest and attention 10 objections, OF a
trivial character, and II is believed thai the
strIctcst scrutiny technical Will be dis
covered IN any OF his rulings upon minor points.
Should any oil them be thought questionable II VIII
scarcely be believed that they worked any injury
thc defendant when consIdee The overwhelming
force OF the undsputcd evidence. AS TO the allowance
he urged that this was perfectly proper. Under tho
Code as amended, allowance Is not restricted to
com pcusauon Tor tho cost OF the trial; 1t may
granted when no trial has bocn had. IL needs but
glance this to satisfy any court that tho labor
OF the preparation and trial OF The has been
nous and unprecedented In magnitude Of amount
involved aud recovered the is probably uncquaed
In the annals of litigation. surely, II there
difficult and extraordinary case, this he claimed
bc and II being then Tor allowance, tie
discretion of tho Court, he insisted, well
cised
AT tie conclusion OF tho argument, which occupied
nearly the entire day, the Court took the papers,
serving It's decision
THE PRICE OF THE HERALD HAS BEEN RE-