Year: 1872

Board of Supervisors Against william


n. Tweed and Demurrcrs and Appeals


Growing Out of Thcm-Ffnal Hearing
Before the Supreme Court, General
Term-Thc Board OF Supervisors De-
clarcd the Proper Party to Bring the
Suit.


The laws prOverbial delays tedious az they are
are surely bringing to climax the civil suits i-
sttuted against William M. Tweed and his alleged
"Ring' confederates, to recover the large sums
charged, through the medium OF fraudulent claims,
to have been Illegally obtained by them from the
county treasury. More rapid progress however,
has been made in the suit against Mr.. Tweed than
In the other SUITS he being charged with taking
the lions share, and therefore the suit against him
naturally taking the precedence. Although the
history OF this suit is already more than 'thrice
told tale" from the frequency with which, in one
shape or another, 1t has been brought before the
Courts, q brief


RESUME OF THE CASE,


or rather OF the legal steps hitherto taken, is
necessary to an mtelligible understanding Of the
proceedings yesterday in the case, and which, as
already intimated, place it in position shutting
on the possibility Of the intervention OF mere legal
subterfuges and compelling speedy trial. First
in order then, a suit was instituted by the Board
of Supervisors on behalf Of the county of New
York, against william M. Tweed, to recover
5000, ,000 alleged through his connivance to have
been paid out of the county treasury fraudulent
claims. Another suit was also begun against him
behalf Of the Statethe latter suit being brought
by the Attorney General OF the State, prosecuted
by Charles O'Conor-based substantially on the
same causes OF action. A demurrer to the COM
plant in this suit argued before the late Judge
Hogeboom at Albany. The point Of this demurrer
vo hot 10 had rirhf n mi NU fha cutf
and that the cause Of action lay In the county OF
New York, the money sought to be recovered
being alleged to have been taken from the county
treasury. Judge Hogeboom Overruled this de-
murrer. An appeal was at once taken from his de-
cision to the Third department OF the General Term
OF the Supreme Court, Judges Miller. Potter and
Parker presiding. Here the case was argued at
length and resulted in the decision Of Judge
Potter holding that the cause Of action lay in the
State and that the county Of New York was not q
necessary party to the action, but Judge Parker
Term OF the Supreme Court of this county, Judge
Barrett on the BENCH the suit Of the Board OF
Of % TWeed for u the puTpose Of estna ~ WHICH
party had the right to bring the suit. Another
long argument ensued, which was published at
by Mr.. Tweed's counsel that the State alone had
the the, right gt., to bring the t suit and that the
the the suit OF the supervisors. Judge Barrett cor.
rected that demurrer, deciding that the county
was the proper per Plantit; Again an appeal was





this department, and the case came up for argu-
ment yesterday on this appeal at the supreme
Court General Term, Judges Ingraham, Brady and
Leonard on the bench


ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL


This is pretty much repetition Of the previous
arguments and wholly OF technical character, the
merits of the as to the guilt or otherwise Of
Mr.. Tweed not being gone into at all; and, In fact,
this subject which is really the great point Of in
OF the subject matter before the Court. Represent
Ing Mr.. Tweed, as on the previous occasions, was
Mr.. David Dudley Field, while the opposing lawyers
were Mr.. Richard O'Gorman, Corporation
Counsel; ex-Judge Potter and George Ticknor Cur
tbs. Mr.. Field insisted that the Court must either
dissent from or concur in the decision arrived at
the General Term at Albany, and urged that in
case OF concurrence the suit Of the Supervisors
tice to his client OF the two suits and the necessity
OF an immediate decision being arrived at so as to
know which Of the suits could be prosecuted. AS
trial, but objected to being tried twice for the
same alleged offence. He pressed the demurrer
al the and Of
was that the Board OF supervisors having brought
the first suit, and that for money alleged to have
by county official, they alone were the
proper parties to bring the he action. Al.


p the decision the Of e corrs
Corporation Counsel being alleged to be in coiiu.
charge the decisions OF the two concurring Judges
were received, and the fact shown how upon diner
eut RfOunuS tney dTElVeu At LHe bdIuc CONCLUSION.
Both arguments were upon the points previously
used, and, having been heretofore published in FULL
are thus briefly epitOmized:-


DECISION OF THE COURT


At the close Of the argument the judges talked
the matter over for few minutes among them
selves, and then Judge lngraham announced their
decision. He went on to say that If they were to
decide this case according to their own Judgment
without reference to the decision Of the Third
department, they would have no dificuty in
holding that the suit Of the Board OF Supervisors
had been well brought and that the Supervisors
had the right to sue for money alleged to have
been misapplied by county oficial. As to the
decision OF the Third department, they could not
be bound by il, especially as being made by
divided Court. Even the two judges who con-
Cured In the opinion disagreed upon the reasons
which they assigned for arriving at the same con-
clusions flaw: The right OF action was, in their
opinion with the Supervisors of the county OF New
York. The Judgment OF the Court below was there
fore sustained and the demurrer Overruied


An order was at once entered in accordance with
the above decision and defendant allowed forty
days'to answer the complaint OF the Supervisors.