The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-04-14
Unatsa UtaGes ClrOals Court.
Beebrs Hou. yuors Ineerpel.

Bsssrs Hon. Juogs Ingsrssl.
Arm o.-ABot G. Sloo and Gscood HsAr o. Georps
Eas, Marshall o. Rs6~ts, es e-rAs hearing Of the
oa fsr IN ntsrssutsy order, In tAs nature d In
junction, to restrain the defendants from employing or
dsposng Of the steamers Of the trust ps~de tie, vas
resumed this morning. rhs particulars Of the bill Of
complaint, ths afdsviu eonssctsd herewith and the
acoo already had In this matter have been heretofore
laid before the readers Of tho nKsAID.
On the being called, Mr. e. N Dickerson LOT
sci for the pia ntns proposed to introduce suppeuen
tsry afh aviss contradictory number Of the alegs
tons contained In the affidavit of Mr. o. Roberta
Of the defendants in the suit Mr.. Ncksrson based his
upon the general scope OF the 1866 and It'll
Ct the equity practice Of ths and other courts of
the Unieo State The rules referred to leave tine sdms
on OF such supplementary evidence within the exercise
of the souGd discretion of the Court.
Mr.. Dicker STATED that he had In his hands an ali
cbvit made ny Commodore Vanderbilt last summer, to.
tsl variance WITH the statement Of the gentle
WHOM hsd introduced BY tue dete odsnts at
previous stsss cfbe proceedings Tls subssA Of
afHdsviA Of Col. sco Flsner Captain Morn, (Govero
ns.. 20 e: to sS
condition Of the stssnships Ohio and Ge,rgis the coal
sccouIt aud this tsnsaoo Of the plaintiffs with
the defeUdAnts stated BY the earnsi counsel Mr.
Dekerson lntnset ths DO had In his possession state
Det Is furnsheo niu by Mr.. Roberts which clearly
bs disc
Roberto ind btsd them some thirty hSussnd db
lars Mr.. Disaersop proposed to offer those am 10
Roberts statement.
Mr. Cot,ing ctje,ed oontendirg tsAt this was not an
instance in WIN, the Court called upon exercise
tire discretion referred By the counsel the other
site He bad supposed that alter the order that had
been agreed to and entered ~ the last hearing Of me
Ia March, Counsel for the plaintiffs would have
proceeded with he Argument Of the mo ion and not
spring this new matter upon his clients.
Mr.: Wood denied that waen tins uuent Was post
poned any ding Of character to preyen. the
plaintiffs putting 10 additional afdsvts, had been on
tered into.
At he rising Of the Court Mr. Cutting had not termi
mated his argument Ia opppsi Ion.
APRIL AT the sitteg Of the Court this morning Mr..
On nas
he previous day, by Mr.. Dokerson, (of counsel for
the p.,ntisl. NJ c. contsndsa a. candsrsDls length
tina. the equity OF the Court 1t only in
-hse he osfendant sitner I'D ri or elss dces
deny his knowledge, the facts set forth In bill
Injunction BY setting up new case in answer tosC,ur
N tue exercise Of s sound escre lon, viii sometimes al
low the plaintiff TO introduce supplementary proofs in re-
butts III esubstance Of the sdsvs soughsto be INIT
tea had been Stated already. and he fany satisfied
that they rely In view Of thu rule
b@cauye they we're mere repelt,on Of the aleg stoas
contained In the b Of paint and the Ada gts
t, annexed. Mr. c. quoted a. ength from the printed
pspes ON both sde- in support Of the expediency OF
permitting the plaintiffs 70 introduce tho proofs refer
led to.
Mr.. B. F. Butler followed the Same side, and
in the course Of his argument maintained that
the plaintiffs BARRE from Q right to
admission Of their supplementary proofs BY reason
Of tie ORDER Of ths Court, dated Tuesday, March
18th timo, and agreed TO both sides. He arg ed
that ny that orr or the plaintiffs hal agreed t, pst-
popemeLt OF the until the present term OF he Court
in consequence OF the absence of Of their COUNSEL
that BY the terms ct tia order they had bound them
aelves 70 poesd at the hearing TO the
ths original motion for injunction and had therefore
waived their right to make such an appica Ion as the
present ono.
1t ALSO urged In opposition that the admission of
the supplementary afhdsv's would have tae effect
permit attacks upon the character & OF the deenaant
without allowing the opportunity to respond
Mr. G. Wood replied, contendiDg that the RUE was
eoos. Ct ahs % %
upon the opposite party who thsreby hadl. full opportu
nifty 4 knowing What he had to answer. rhs defendant
with counter sffiidavss, and In those latter
be Was not confined mAere precisely ponstvs to
sfhtavits He fright introduce expansions, aidid onA
reasons matters of avoaapce end all those might bs Of
character entirely new TO the complainant and VIII ch
It was in possible for him TO anticipate would bs put
forward by the defendant The rule was designed TO
met exactly such The introduction of aft isvis
oppts the fac statsi in the DEFENDANTS adA
vSts did mot nsitus elimination. r. he supplement
tary adsvte impeschec the defendant It resulted om
dier Of recolecuon between he respective pArties
bring in sfdavi which only denied What was con-
tsined IN the bill and adavts Of the plaintiffs but also
n'roe Do.e new matter then the dsends.ts might i'm
pesch or give Ger gatory to the chAraser
and coLduct Of the other side without allowing hsm
opporu nifty to answer Mr. W. urged thai the defendsut
M. 0. Roberts, 10 bis answering affidavit did in many
reesrcs acni the truth OF the allegations In the
paint, bu introduced new matter, oy way of avoid
anes, e whisn went to cdmiaAts the
character and gooa standing Of the plaintiffs Ia the suit
He entirely distep ed lom the proposition that The
der CT nar:n 49, 1856 ostponng the hearing debred
them from sskng permission to introduce suppl sntary
PROOF or sfcsvts 0ns of the afdaviss Chat Of
Captain horrisD asked 70 b introduced
before hts Honor upon that very cay and the affidavit Of
Mr. T. Fsber, stating -he reasons of his sbAence
hapced to the opposing unset snd that affidavit set
forth that Mr. Fl her had parity prepared
AFFIDAVIT ~heL nsllac sway. In,imA:fon Of the ants'
interior intro other afndAyta
wouc Be deem per- bad beeu al along given the
defen5ants' council Under these circumstances. ne
main aDed thai vie admission Of the sup elementary
afosvits rsbuttpe the ter set forth In the
answrry hfidavts ud % soun1 aud legal exercise
Of The discretion vested in tho Court.