The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-01-08
THE COURTS.
The Fugitive Fields and the
Firemen's Fund.
IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE WESTDROOK.
A Captain Charged with Brutal Treat
ment Of His Steward.

Leading the various charges against Thomas c.
Fields appropriatng to his use S459977 70 re-
oeved by him assignee Of number Of iremen. The
money paid through the Chamberlain OF the city on
check Of Comptroller Connolly. On behalf OF the
people suit brought against Fields TO recover the
amount In this suit which went to the Court OF APP
peals it was shown that the money received with
out authority OF law An filed by the city,
but the same subsequently withdrawn
The matter did not end here however, but
in October last another trial had before Judge
Westbrook holding Special Term OF the Supreme
Court Judge Westbrook gave his decision yesterday
in lengthy, but clear and exhaustive opinion.
In his opinion Judge Westbrook discusses first at
length the effect of the withdrawal OF the answer put
by the city He then calls attention TO the allega-
that the city and county authorities have acqui-
esced In the fraudulent payment are coludlng and
conniving with Fields In the fraud, and examines
length the opinion in the OF the People lngerso
drawing distinction between that and the present
that while in that the people claimed the money their
own and for the city, the city not being
in that defendant and the point not being raised
and the opinion Of Judge Allen turned directly upon
that point that the State owned the money sought TO
be recovered and the action could only be maintained
by the party who was the technical owner OF It, The
unanimous conclusion of the Court OF Appeals in
that that the State might not under proper
allegations Of the failure of the officers Of the city of
New York TO discharge their duties, sue behalf of
the city, but that they could any such grounds
sue behalf OF the State The question presented is
where clear right Of action exists against party
recover moneys belonging 10 munlClpal corporation
which he has wrongfully obtained, to the great injury
OF honest taxpayers by fraud and cousion with the
municipal officers which the corporation refuses
for because its officers collide with the wrong
doors? Must such moneys remain in the wrongdoer's
pocket because there is party competent to sue who
is willing 10 prosecutor The question startling
II II requires Affirmative answer, then the wisdom
which has moulded our State government and framed
its laws has been entirely at fault" Municipal corpo
not the creations of the State for the good
of locality but for the general welfare of the whole
An argument which afrms want OF power in the peo
pie to maintain action under the conditions
pressed above overlooks the right OF self preser
the individual but in the state 1t is like the question
propounded TO the national government 'Where is the
clause in the federal constitution which author
ICES the government to raise an army to
coerce State ?" The letter OF the law was then
invoked TO paralyZe the nations arm and the argu-
ment is that the thief may steal from a municipal
corporation, with the aid of fraudulent officials and
steal until the substance of the people consumed by
the power of the gatherer until the prosperity Of
the Commonwealth is affected by combinations for
plumber in Its separate parts and yet the State be
eress to intervene for the protection Of the honest
citizen thus plundered Such reasoning carries no
weight.
Judge westbrook holds that the States highest duty
TO its citizens protection and that under the of
1875 the action against Fields properly brought
holds that under section 1T of the code amend
men of the complaint proper, to make 1t conform
10 the statute. The amendment seeks to change
facts, to bring in party to do act to
which the defendant Fields had any moral or legal
right to object merely asks that the record shall DO
amended that the accountability of the plaintiffs to
the city shall expressly appear and TO this there
be possible objection. Judge Westbrook, however
allows the defendant Fields costs up 70 the time of
trial merely as credit on the recovery in the action.