New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-08-10

toouce. His counsel also spoke Of the osse, and 81
the probabilities TIA; they would b there TO take
part in the argument. There was no agreement
between yoursef "and any Of defendants in Balh'
more, by which you agreed with them "to make mp
a case for final hearing before Judge Giles"
There was an ayreemen. made between Mr.. Mar
shal the counsel for the Baltimore defendants, and
Mr. Latr ODE the counsel for you to the effect have
before stated cannot exclude the conviction that
Mr. Judson was aware of this agreement This con-
victiop arises not only from my own knowledge, but
also from the folowiI facts:
I. The New.York answers were filed and copies
served upon NE. Within few days thereafter the
came answer filed in Baltimore; the type was the
came, the paper was the same, and If | am not ms
taken, the filing UP Of the blanks IN the PRINT, WIN
the exception Of tie baGes, was in the same hand
wrtng-that Of gentleman well known a. the asso-
ciate Of Dir. Judsou's counsel.
9. Mr.. Brsdy's argument before Judge Itgersol
was printed Judge Ingersoli's opinion was printed
Portions Of the afiidavs Of defendants 10 Ne~-iork
ard the various parties whom they procured to act s.
aiants were also printed. Mr.. Marshal appeared IN
Court, with printed copies Of MI Brady argument
of Judge Irgersols decision, and Of the defendants
sffidavts.
3. Judge Curts's argument and reply TO the de-
fendsnt's reargurrert were printed by you. Copies
were furnished in New-Yo'k to Mr.. Judsons council
They were OF furnished to Mr.. Marshal in Baltimore,
and yet NJ. Marshal appeared in Court with copies
Of Judge Curtiss argument and reply.
4. There are to ny knowledge but two copies ex-
tart Of certain pleading in a suit in New-Jersey
One Of those copies is in your possession, and the
other is in that Of Mr.. Judsons counsel. We pro-
duced your copy at Baltimore, and by some means
Mr.. Marshal was able to produce another copy.
s. From all these papers BIZ. Marshal Undertook to
convince the Court, in the language OF Nj. Judson
card. that "tbe Nashawannuch Company and |, ."
i e. Mr.. Judson, were "the licensees for woven
elastic goods" These facts are to me evidence SUI
fciently strong to warrant the conviction that Mr.
tucson was cognizant Of p. that Mr.. Marshal did; OF
all the resources that ne bad and that MIR. Judson
assumed to control ard did control, The legal position
to be taken by the defendants in the Baltimore suits
which 20 sing ulay comedies with the position taken
by him in his card.
Were it not for rule Ct professional courtesy, |
should alude to what was SAID to me by Mr.. Marshal
upon this point but cannot, without consultation
with him. repeat what he sod but am ct liberty to
state that Mr. Judsons assertion that he had no con-
nection with the Baltimore cases, would be much
strengthened if he would produce from Mr.. Marshal
statement to that effect
MIR. Marshs in his argument took not only the
points which were taken by Mr. Judson's counsel in
the cases in Ney-York, but he took new points, and
cited in support thereof acts between the parties out
eide of ttese particular This argues either
that M Marshal was intimate with the various rami
fca,ions of the India Rubber controversies, or that
lie had beer made acquainted with them for the pur-
I1.f.. o,,,4. Nj, IuHso 60 at
"Mr. Marshal knew nothing by experience of the
"complicatons of this controversy" If he did not,
then he was made familiar with them by instruction
from some one II would be gratifying to be assured
BY Mr. Msrsha that this instruction was not given by
either Mr.. Judson or his counsel.
1t is further alleged
l. "That this" j. e., the Baltimore hearing, was
ct . final hearing
o "Day's is 10. the older title, but mine lie; AMI it
is title which had been adiuGicsted by the courts for
the last fourteen years, and is as well known III Tue
Supreme Court a. il is 70 me.
g. "This is no settlement Of the question: nor any
approach TO cne.'
L. "Ihsve suit pending against Day in this Dis
trict to enjoln him from any further troubling the
country with this crazy claim ard that suit will settle
our rights"
First: That this raS final hearing, no. by con.
sent, but upon the pleadings and proofs.
Second That the decision of Judge Giles decides
that uour title is the older title and that has not
been adiudcated by the courts for the Last fourteen
years. If the various Judges of the Supreme Court
are acquainted with Mr.. Judson alleged title, their
acquaintance must have been derived from state
uents made TO them when off the bench, because
r L.. cf., hty hat
tribunal in relation to shirred corrugated goods of
any description
Third. That the ina decree entered at Baltimore
i, not only ian approach to settlement, but is a
final ard conclusive settlement; and one which the
comfy of other Courts if exercised in this particular
instance as it Usually exercised in every other Gaze,
will adopt It affirm. and follow.
Fouyh. That il is true that M Judson has sued
you in reference 10 wha: he politely denomnates
''tbe crazy claim. M. Judson omits to state, how
ever. what ia equally true ard il was undoubtedly q
casual onssiOn that before he Instituted the suit to
which he refers, You had commenced suit against
him under the impression that las was the crazy
claim" and that Your suit would result in epjoinng
.. lin from any further troubling the country Il
"may be we'll for those who sympsthize with YOU
Ito remember that for fifteen Yeas" You have been
engaged in endeayoriLg to protect your legal nights
and although YOU are alleged To have always been
defeated, the opinion and decision OF bis Honor
Judge Giles would seem to indicate that the
wlul mis statement in this particular, msy warrant
the belief that the other statements IN the card are TO
ssy the least, questionable. True 1t is, that you
ATTEMPTED to repudate this very shirred goods
license" and is also true that such attempt was
made at the invitation of Mr.. Goodyear in suit IN
which, as complainant he himself set the example oil
Reputation, and that your attempt was sustained o.!
the finding of the Jury in your favor, when Mr.