Year: 1876

The preliminary proceedings in the trial OF the Tweed
81 100000 suit resumed yesterday before Judge
westbrook in the Supreme Court, Circuit


At the sitting of the Court Mr Peckham, on behalf
or the people, said he wished TO make motion for
writ directing the Coroner Of the county TO summon
taesmen to ill up the vacancies in the jury. Mr.
Pcckham support of his motion, said 1t was admitted
by the other side that the Sheriff interested
party.


Mr. David Dudley Field-That Is not so.


Mr. Peckham-Do you to say that the Sheriff
IS not party to this sutS


Mr. Feld-I do TO say anything until see
what afidavits you have to offer


Mr. Peckham-we will present affidavit setting
forth that the defendant Tweedl has been
and still is in the custody OF the Sheriff He
then went on to argue that it was a most COM
mon thing for the Court to direct the sum-
monlng OF talesmen to fill the vacancies in 4 special
Jury he cited in support Of his argument a number
OF English decisions Counsel went on to say that
special uries part Of the jury system and in Eng
land very common. OF course, it quite pos
sble that the jury might not be filed from the twenty
four men selected, and 10 meet this, a very
difficulty, i has been the custom almost time out OF
mind for the Court to direct talesmen to fill the
vacancies Counsel went on to say, commenting on
the statute previously examined, that of these
statutes had been repealed


Mr. David Dudley Field said that the counsel on the
other side had ntimated that had consulted counsel
this matter. He (Sr. FIELD thought he had made
sn stake He was OF the opinion there had been so far
100 much outside interference in this He intended
70 have such Interference and he had doubt that
the Court and the counsel the other SIDE could do
their duty without it He, at least, intended to do
without the aid of newspapers or any other influence
his fees from He would gladly inform it if one Of the
editors OF that paper told him why he called upon Mr.
Tweed on certain occasion and what he asked him
for and also If they would tell him Mr Field) whether
chat paper at sustained by the bounty and
indulgence Of gentleman whom for years it charged
Iersistenty and most grossly, and, he hoped, most
falsely with having robbed corporation vast sums
OF money Now here fair offer If the Tribune
answered him he would answer the Tribune. He was
wiling if counsel would meet him half way, to agree
upon struck jury to try the $6000 900 suit, which
~ that this. while in the present there
was nothing to be settled which not likewise in
volved in the first suit He would stpulate, in
counsel should agree upon fair and impartial jury not
10 nterpose any challenge to such struck jury This
was fair offer, which counsel might accept or not
Mr. Field then went on to argue in opposition to Mr..
Peckhain that no such writ could issue He cited
number OF decisions bearing on the case, and in con-
cusion conended that the jury could not be supple
mented He thought that this put end TO the case


After recess Ar. Peckham referred to the provision
OF the statute flS47 simply providing that any
Court might order at any time additional panol OF
thirty,six, which did not interfere with the revised
statute providing talesmen He contended that the
Legislature could not be charged with the absurdty Of
providing for panel Of twenty four and provision
made for absence of some for of being summoned
or from challenges or otherwise. That deficiency was
plainly supplied in England by talesmen on application
OF either slde.


Mr. Carter followed on the same side He submitted
that there would be nterminable delay If jury
should be summoned whenever full jury not had
from the struck jury.


Mr. Field intimated that that just what he
dicIed.


Mr. Carter said the other side would be delighted
with the special jury system If they could have
mnabe delays by striking of enough from the twenty
four and saying it a deadlock aud they could
20 o. at all. But such reasoning not worthy OF
consideration. The laws OF England never intended
such An iniquity The plaintiffs were referred TO no
special statute decision proving that they had
10 any such deadlock Counsel further contended that
the tactics on behalf Of the defendant those fol-
lowed in cases he cited going TO some amendatory acts
aud finding incongruous pieces Of legislation which
made II impossible TO proceed against the plain intent
OF the Legislature The PLAIN rule that laid down
by Judge Deno-"In considering the parts Of remedial
systems occasional lncongruities of little
The intention of the Legislature is to be carried OUT
The original mode OF filling up special juries was by
taesmen, and that had never been abrogated


Ar. Field, in replying, referred TO the delay which
had been caused in the proceedings The plaintiffs had
been, after three weeks discussing whether they could
summon special jury after having summoned a spe-
cal But the trial need not be broken up II they
would have the special jury rule discharged and take
jury. The only order the Court could posi-
bly, make would be to draw certain number of names
from the jury box and have them summoned by the
sheriff. but II the Court TO the conclusion IL had
such power, that was end of IT,


Judge Westbrook announced that he would render
his decision to-day and the Court adjourned.