Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1860-05-11
The Watrous Texas Land Frauds

lFrom the New York Evening Post, May71
SUPREME CoURT-Before MuIlin, J. Simon
and Jacob MHsSina agt. Charles StiIiDtan et al =
This case came up again last Friday on the an
plication Of defendants counsel to postpone or
modify an order requiring the examination of
MIR: Alling, one Of the defendants on behalf of
plaintiffs -
Ii seems that the plaintiffs reIy upon the testi
mony Of the defendants to prove the conspiracy
alle2e in this case, and that Charles StiIIInan
another Of the defendants, was last duly sum,
moned 10 appear and be examined and that in
November last be procured an order from Judge
Davies, permitting him to go to Texas without
completing his examination, but recurring him
10 appear 70 resume II on the 5th of March last
winch ne dld not do, and that during the pen
dency OF motion to strike out his answer for bis
non-apPearance, Mr.. Alling, resident of New
Orleans came to this city for the purpose of going
to France On Saturday last (where his family have
removed to) by the steamer Vanderbilt, and was
summoned to appear and answer, in lieu of still
man, on the nth instant.
On Friday, Mr.. Lot c. Clark for defendant
applied TO Judge Mullin to modify the order re-
hi9 to start for Europe on Saturday -
The Judge said he had just extended the time
forsthe defendant. Stillman's examination, on
account Of the urgency Of his business, and now
ne was asked to grant similar favor to MIR AL
ing, another defendant. He thought that the
anxiety of these defendants to avoid the examina-
tion had become peculiar feature of this case
He would give the counsel for plaintiffs Mr.
Gardner, time, as this application was made
without due notice to prepare afidavtts as to
wnetner the modincafion asked for would inter-
Iere with the rights OF the plaintiffs. Subse-
9uently the argument was brought up aaain, and
Mr.. Clark for defendant, cited some authorities
to show that IL was discretionary with the Court
TO 70 grant M this application, and thats commission
be fixed which would answer all the PURPOSES of
the examination required by the order He said
that the defendant was anxious to ioin his family
In France, and was in III health, and ought not
IN he In hfs
departure
Mr.. H. G. Gardiner, for PLAINTIFF. insisted that
plaintiffs were entitled to the examination Of Al
ling, as matter Of right conferred both by the
statute and the code, and that the entering Of an
order permitting defendant to depart from the
jurisdiction OF the court would deprive the plai
tirfs Of this right altogether This was charge
of conspiracy, and II must be proved by facts and
circumstances and IL would be impossible To
frame interrogatories in a commission with such
ingenuity as to prove those circumstances, and
even II that could be done, what power had the
plaintiffs to compel the defendant to answer them
The object Of the defendant was delay, and IL
granted, there was no remedy, as the witnesses,
sssuinony was required against his CO defendant
upon which the summons could be set aside. and
toat defendant did not intend TO leave the State.
His Illness, true, was strong reason why the
should proceed at once, and therefore
ought 70 proceed Immediately. .
The Judge said that plainiiffs wanted the testi-
mony Of the witness not only against himself but
against bis co-defendant That he was In feeble
health, and IL he went abroad he might never re-
turn, and then there wonld be no remedy even IL
his answer were stricken out, he being beyond the
jurisdiction of the court. Besides the statute
gave the right to the examination not only %
against the party himself, but ss affecting other
parties; aud where the discretion Of the court
70 take that right away from the Plaintifs. The
DEFENDANTS application was denied, but the order
wa. modified 50 as to have the Examination com
uenee this m@ing, instead Of the 18th inst.