Year: 1875

In one OF Its recent decisions the Supreme Court
General Term, fixed the time allowed William NJ Tweed
TO file his in the civil suit brought against him
by The People to recover So 600 900 at seven days.
The time thus allowed expired yesterday and promptly
time Mr. Field OF counsel for defendant, served
the answer Attorney General Pratt Tho follow
ing is the answer in full, which explains ITSELF


TwEEBs ANSWER


e~pREME CouRT-The People OF the State or New
York VS. wiInam n. rwecd ana the Mayor, Aldermen
and Communalty of the city of New York.


The defendant, William NJ. Tweed, answers TO the
complaint as follows:-


Frst-Fora lrst defence


That on the Goth OF April, 1870 Abraham Oakley
Hall was Mayor the city Of New York. and Richard b.
Connolly Comptroller thereof and 50 continued 70 the
passed by the Legislature OF the state containing sec
ion Of the general purport mentioned In the complaint
but for greater accuracy this defendant refers TO the act
3 That this defendant and James Watson, de-
ceased never did combine conspire agree together
us alleged in the said complaint


8 That between tho 26th Of April 1870 and the I'd OF
September 1870 liabilities against the county OF New
York incurred prior TO the 26th Of April, 1870,
certified and audited in conformity with the provisions
Of the alleged act, but whether the amount OF the
claims so certified or audited is truly stated in the said
complaint amounted in the aggregate to the sum
therein mentioned, whether the schedule annexed
TO said complaint, marked "a, contains true speci
fcaton Of the persons in whose favor such liabilities
certified or audited or OF the amount OF the
audits severaly made, whether the claims in said
schedule marked a. were in fact certified audited
in OF the persons for the therein stated
whether warrants for the payment thereof were
issued whether said schedule contains the date of
alleged Of such challenged warrants any other
particulars this defendant has knowledge or in
formation sufficient to form belief.


4. That this defendant has knowledge or informa-
tion sufficient to form belief whether the Comptroller
OF the city OF New York for purposes stated the
complaint any other purpose caused TO be issued the
bonds in said complaint mentioned or obtained from
purchasers thereof during the period In the complaint
stated any other period, the amount In the COM
plant stated whether the amounts stated In the
complaint alleged to have been received from the
Aav. faIt n,
the bank the credit of the account in the COM
plant mentioned or TO the credit of any other account
or whether the moneys in the complaint alleged TO
have been so deposite or other moneys IN tne
complaint stated drawn out OF said bank,
as IN the complaint alleged, but THIS DEFENDANT on IN
formation and belief alleges that u was the duty of the
Comptroller to deposit the proceeds Of the bonds sold
by him and the moneys obtained from purchasers
thereof in the National Broadway Bank OF the city OF
New York, TO the credit OF an account Kept by the
Chamberlain of the said city as County Treasurer Of
the said county and that all moneys received from the
sale of bo nds by said Comptroller and deposited by him
were, in compliance with statute and usual mode OF
official proceeding in tho said city deposited in said
bank 10 the credit of said County Treasurer and the
bonds issued and sold by him obligations OF the
county Of New York, for which the said county
liable, and which IL legally bound to pay, and all
moneys realized from the disposition sale of any
boucs issued under and in pursuance OF the act Of
the moneys of the county of New York and that
the plaintiffs herein have at no time had any interest in
said bonds in said moneys, any of the bonds or
moneys in the complaint mentioned.


5. That on the 26th OF April, 1870 and thence and
until his death, James watson wits County Auditor
the county OF New York; as such County Auditor il
the duty OF said Watson to examine and certify
allow and audit all claims against the county Of New
York and said 26th Of April 1870 and until the 4h
OF July, 1870 Joseph b. Young was Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors of the county of New York


That paper OF the general character OF the paper
in said complaint mentioned, dated May s. 1870 was
signed by the several parties in that behalf stated
tie complaint and the certificate Of allowance and audit
used by the auditors mentioned in the said of 10th
OF April, 1870, substantially in the form Of the
certificate mentioned in Schedule 40" annexed
atrt ~
were issued by the direction OF the
Comptroller and signed by him, and counersigned by
the Mayor and by the Clerk Of the Board of Supcrv
sors but whether said paper dated May 1870 is
recty set forth in the complaint, whether SAID
rants in the form Of schedule I'd" annexed to
said complaint or how or in what manner or BY whom
payments made OF such warrants, this defendant
has no knowledge or information sufficient to form
belief


l. That this defendant was never President or the
Board OF Supervisors, as there such ofhce but
he was Chairman Of that Board the Goth OF April,
1870 and continued until the 4th of July thereafter


\. That this defendant has no knowledge nforma-
ton sufficient to form belief whether tho Mayor AL
dcrmen and Commonalty of the city OF New York set
up pretend 10 any right or Interest In the premises
except that they have action now pending against
him for substantially the same alleged cause OF action.


This defendant denies each and every allegation OF
the said complaint not herein before specifically and
expressly answered, admitted or denied


Secondhand for a further and second defence this
deponent alleges information and belief that the
county Of New York IS body corporate and polite,
and should be made party to this action and there is
defect of parties by Of the omission to make
the said county OF New York party defendant thereto


Third-And for further aud third defence this de.
fendant alleges information and belief that three
other civil actions against him for the same alleged
Of action commenced before the commence
ment Of this action, and were pending, undetermined,
when this action was commenced, and still pend
ing that is say one action by the present plaintiffs
another by the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty OF
the city OF New York. and another by the Board Of u
pervisors Of the county Of New York.


F0p7th-And for q further and fourth defence this
defendant alleges, information and belief that the
plaintiffs IN this action before the commencement
drew J. Garvcy John H. Keyser, J. Mcbride Davidson
and by which the said Garvey, Keyser and Davidson
have been each relieved from each and every OF
action against thcm any Of thcm arising OF the
pretended transactions mentioned referred TO In the
said complaint or in the schedules thereto annexed.


Fyut-And Tor a further and separate ana fifth de.
fence this defendant alleges, upon information and be-
lief that after the time OF the alleged transactions men
toned in the complaint John H. Keyser mentioned In
the schedule thereto annexed executed 10 one Jackson
Schultz, an assignment of large amount of prom.
erty trust TO convert the same into money and nav
the money TO tho county of Noy v ~ payy
on account Of the money alleged to have been
BY him received upon tho warrants mentioned
IN tho complaint which Is portion Of the money
sought be recovered from this defendant in this ac
ton and the said Schultz accepted the said assignment
executed the trust and paid over 70 tho said county
large Of money account thereof That among
the property assigned was private claim Of the said
Keyser against this defendant, which prosecuted
and collected from this defendant BY Francis G. Bar
low, the Attorney General OF the State Of New York
who collected the same on behalf Of the pantins or Of
asks for accounting Of the moneys collected and
paid over and claims and insists that they should bc
deducted from any amount which may be recoverable
against this defendant by reason OF the matters alleged
IN the complaint FIELD DEYO,


Attorneys for defendant William NJ Tweed,
city aud County Of NeV Pork,


William NJ Tweed being duly sworn says that the
foregoing answer Is true to his knowledge except
as to those matters stated information and belief aud
as to those matters he believes Il TO be true.


WILLIAM NJ TWEED.
Sworn to before mo this 18th day Of october, 1879


D. STRATroN Notary Public New York county.


TO rHs ATTORNEY GENERAL.


Accompanying the foregoing answer is notice
served on the Attorney General by counsel for Tweed,
as lollows:--


SUPREME CouRT.-The People Of the State Of New
York vs. William W. Tweed, mpeaded with tho
Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty Of the City Of
New York


SiR-This answer is served at the present time be-
cause the defendant has not beon able obtain stay
q proceedIngs bonding bis appeal 70 the Court OF