Year: 1875

MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAsE-ARGUMKNTs BY


CHARLES o'CoNoR, MR.. BEACH, AND MR. PECK


HAM PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY RICHARD


O'GORMAN.


ALBANY, Oct. 12.-1n the Supreme Court,
the OF the People OF the State Of NewYork against
Thomas c. Fields mpleaded with others, which has occ
pied place the calendars for the past two years.
up for second trial to-day The case Is substsn'
TALLY the the before tried under the samo
title I'm which Judgment was recovered against the de-
PENDANTS in the Of $5OOOOO and upward, for the
misappropration OF certain moneys belonging TO the
City Of New-YOrk The plaintiffs were represented by
Mr. Charles OConor and Wheeler H. Peckham, while
William A. Beach appeared for the defendant The tes-
timOny used former trial by consent admitted
in this. Before going into it, motion was made by Mr.
Beach to dismiss the complaint the ground subsan-
tally that the case has already been decided by
the OF Appeals and that the right to the money
alleged to have msapproprated In the city, an
action the Of the people Of the State cannot be
extended on this motion Arguments were made by
Messrs Charles O'Conor, William A. Beach, and Wheeler
Ii. Peckham.


At the conclusion Judge Westbrook took the papers
and reserved his decision 1t being mutually agreed that
whatever decision he would arrive at would be entered
as OF to-day and exception noted on the part OF the
side against whom the decision should be made


At the conclusion OF the argument Of Mr.. Beach, Mr.
Richard O'Gorman late Corporation Counsel OF New
York CITY, addressed the Court, and said he had been
subpenaed as witness and had expected to testify In the
case In view OF the IL had taken he would be
denied the privilege OF saying what he desired on the Wit
ness stand He would ask the indulgence OF the Court
while he referred points bearing more par
ticularly on himself The complaint contained allega
tons fraud and collusion in the msappropaton OF
money on the part OF the several law officers OF the city
in that it stated they "have acquiesced in such mis-
application Of funds, aud are still eonnving
at and seeking to protect Mr. Fields from
prosecution He had also fund, In stipulation pre-
sented to the Court that Fi ds appointed Corpo
ration Attorney in 1871, by him Corporation Counsel
and continued in that position TO October ls72 ana
that he, such Corporation Counsel, prevented SUIT
from being brought lie would in reference to that
that no suit begun by behalf OF the City or
County Of New-York, nor was he consulted III
reference TO any such suit being brought during
the time Fields was in the Office In regard TO
the allegation on which the claim for relief IL based ne
would say that he never officially unociay, In any
shape or from any source knew Of the issue OF bonds or
appropriation OF money until called on to testify ana
then the only information he had OF any claim OF the de-
fendant alleged Of pay was from eonver
saton OF Fields with him TO the effect OF the act OF
1869 and he then informed him that sum in excess OF
$4,000 could be paid In conclusion, he stated that
during his occupation OF the office Of Corporation Counsel
there had never request to the Law Department
TO prosecute either in the Ring suits any other suit
that had been refused or neglected