New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-03-22

1oo,2G4 II
E.A.D.E -Receivcd payment by note on demand for
one hundred thousand dollars, ana cheek Tor S2ol a.
May /. 1872 D. H. iNoLHSoi'
On the next day, May 2, 1872 the parties again meta
defendants Office and the 100000 note was exchanged
far three notes. Sl65O0 one for $4,000. which
have been paid and one for $4,000 on which, rs
herenbefore stated. S5,7sl 03 is still due.
BRIBERY OF LEGISLATORS.
That much being proved the plaintiff In order 10 avoid
the effect Of this settlement and OF his receipt attempts
to show that the settlement and receipt were obtained
Inv fraudulent representations IL also suggested that
something like durcss practiscd upon him. but the
proof falls qnite short OF such duress as can In law
avail the plaintiff. on the day after the settlement the
parties met and amicaby exchanged the 100000 note
for three otbers and there does not appear at this sec
ond meeting TO have been any complaint OF The settle
mcnt; on the contrary, 1t was tactly confirmed con,
and ratified. 1t appears IN evidence that y-e
Ds sd m a to e one OF Bronr o cd &n
through tie Legislature at Albany an appTopriation
charged by the defendant to the plaintiff IN the above
account as cash for the money so paid the plaintiff
500 had actually paid by the defendant In procur
Ing the appropriation referred to- and the plaintiff
claims that since the settlement lie has ascertaned that
n not uo that the defendant expended the Sl25O0
in the manner stated and he therefore, claims that
to recover the balance which would be due him the
account If he had not allowed TIM false charge and
BY making this cain the plaintiff invites ,ne to enter
cape the duty Of going inquiry, far at least
10 ascertain in the first place. whether the plaintiff
he be is 90, he is entitled 10 relief but il 4
turns out that both ne nc plaintiff and defend
i'm corrupt transaction, the plaintiff ON familiar
principles Of law cannot have the laws help however
much In matter the defendant may have been guilty
OF alsehood for the law. ON principles OF public policy,
its interference to settle nights growing out Of
actions then two questions TO he settled
first whether the defendant assertion Is untrue that he
paid the Sill 500 10 procure the Court House appopr
alton and secondly, IL the palnilh an innocent party,
o FAR as 10 be entitled 10 r3iofi The following facts ap
peared in evidence which, directly indirectly bear
upon the question
METHODS or THE RING.
In the Winter Of 1871 the defendant a member OF
the Senate at Albany. aud the plaintiff was Commits
sioper for building Court House for tho County OF
Eew.York and treasurer Of that Commission. The de-
fondant in the course OF the Winter informed the plain
tiG "that an appropriation OF $4,000 would be OBJ
tanned TO be expended by that Commlsson and that ii
would cost - per cent Of tat amount and that the
money had TO he used In the Legislature tat scnsOnto
get things hrcng rGe pan,m no dissent
tho Is per TO be corrupty expended IN procr-
a alpI aud that the 100000. when
cbtaincd by the Ccmmssion,,. was 10 be to
The Commissioners and their associates On tho
Eth Of April 1871 LIN passed the Assepby appro-
The xiii PASSED the Senate April is and that day the
plaintiff gave his check 70 ne defendants agent for
SlOO 600 Tnls the 100000 which, In the foregoing
account is charged by the plaintiff 10 the defendant -
der date of Apr 49, 1871 and in regard TO Ii find that
Il was given pursuance OF this arrangement hereinbe-
fore 70 allow IS per cent on the account IN
serted in bill Tor building the Court House. Now II
Il we're clear that Tweed WAS guilty OF the falseloOd
imputed TO him. sl the plaintiff. In my opinion, upon
the facts is not IN law entitled to the interpretation OF
the Court his behalf TO relieve him from tire opera
ton OF mis- settlement ana receipt.
CONFEDERATEs IN FRAUD.
Resides the facts already mentioned, IL appears by the
p,snti's disclosures OF the Ring frauds which dis
cosure was in evidence before me-that the plaintiff
and defendant were from 1865 10 1872 c0niederates
with each other and with Others. in comprehensive
scheme OF fraud upon the Treasury Of City and County
~ NovYork Bribery and corruption OF the Legislature
hecoa and were necessary parts OF this scheme. The
Conrt House Commission WAS part ana parcel OF tue cor
lt OF these cODederates, anu thls FllZ,
rup dealine them. The defendant says 10 the
plaintiff: II have paid &l12,5OO TO carry OH through
the Legislature for yOnr benefit and nave
charged that amount to you Ihe pln,n aItepo
The law VIII not give the paintin lenei, however i
true the representations may be- Ibo Ia" say 70 mn
You paid money or allowed the charge upon iwee a,
statement that le had committed foul crime Tor your
benefit, and the law cannot give you relief upon your
proc that the crime was not committed. But nasiucn
the plaintiff has manifested g:ea deal OF curiosity
Albany on the 18Th OF April. 1871 and inasmuch as
both parties sent counsel 10 tha get light that
question:. feel bound to take notice OF the the
not actually use the SIl25OO In brblng
members to vote for the Court House appropriation
The plaintiff gave credit to the cefendants word that 1t
oOrdngy. If tue plaintiff would be relieved from
the operation OF that settlement the burden OF proof IL
on him TO slow that the defendants assertion was false
The plaintiff gave full credit TO Tweeds statement, ana
until the contrary is proved must do tke same. Tue
proof docs not satisfy me that the statement
was untrue. though l pdmit there are some