New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-09-12
THE COURTS.
SIZING THE RING sTATIoNERs.
ARGUMENT UPON THE MOTION TO yAcATE TIL
ORDERS OF ARREST.


ARGUMENT UPON THE MOTION TO VAcArE THE
ORDERS OF ARREST.
Oliver W. West argued before Judge Potter,
III the Supreme Court yesterday, motion 20 vaeate the
orders Of arrest the Of J. J. Jones and William T.
Rogers the ring stationers, against whom suit has
been begun by the city TO recover about SlOOO,OOO
alleged to have been frauduenty received by the de-
PENDANTS. The city represented by Corporation
Counsel whitney and his assistant, f. Henry LacomDe
Mr. West said that he would not attack the aidaUts
on which the order Of arrest obtained but would
assume that they were true But the order must dc
sustained upon these adayits as they stood the hrst
ground for vacation that the order OF arrest ala not
state that IL was granted upon the adavits OF any one
The second ground that Mr. Jones was here prose
cuted ia his capaelty that as survivor
of the partnership he trustee Of the property ana
to make him subject to arrest IL must be shown that
thera was some personal fraudulent act on the part OF
Mr. Jones' There was nothing In the AAdavis TO sho"
that Mr. Jones had guilty knowledge OF any
fraud Even Mr. Rogers only charged with deposit
ing and drawing money from the bank, but this IN seu
was no fraud. Again, Mr.. West claimed that IL was
necessary TO alege that the money received was bed
by the city public or governmental interest,"
and no such allegation was in the papers Tue
order again stated that the moneys we're held by tue
"City and County OF New-YOrk." But the county was
distinct organization, and did not hold the money
Moreover, there was proof that the warrants ue.
posted were ever paid and drawn. Mr. west claheu
brought was unconstitutional, ana also tnat the CAUSE
of action having accrued II at ALL In 1870 had been out
lawed for two years by the Statute OF Limitations
Corporation Counsel Whitney replied To Mr.. Mests
arguments He said that tho net OF lsoS under "I,e
the defendants obtained such large sums OF money MAO
not been an act, but had been the means OF
nassinp through and securing payment upon many
fraudulent bills The defendants could not claim tbat
allegations OF fraud were not distinctly maze against
each OF them the papers, for the complaint named
them individually, and alleged that each OF them bau
presented fraudulent bills and received ment upon
them II was unnecessary TO affirm that the moneys
taken were neld for public governmental purposes,
because all the OF the corporation was held 10
that way. As the mistake IN regard 10 the noueys
held by the county II was clerical error which had
been corrected amended complaint. All the papers
wera perfect as far the city concerned ana tue
order arrest could easily stand upon tnat as the
moneys received IRON the city comprised more than
5000 600 OF the sought 10 be recovered The claim
of the uncOnsttutiOnallty OF the law OF 1873 MI Wh
new met BY reading decision Of the Court OF Appeals
90 the contrary effect. Judge Potter reserved MS d
cision Mr. West asked that, In case the motion were
denied the Court would set the down for trial on rae
first Monday October that the defendants might nave
an early opportunity vindcate themselves aud show
who were really the guilty peculators. Mr. whitney
said no intended 70 accommodate them with Speedy