New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-07-03
rs,usa, Of N. relief authorized by the stat.

their lawyer should draw such an alhudNit
The statute does not contemplate the employ lneht OF
counsel at all " does not look ON IL az h0sule pou
counsel 10 is testimony to be gwen TO me bn1g ior
whom It h. necessary. The construction 'onthei TOT
I've defendants Is practically ansGh an paifSGavit Of
each Of tie defendants thai the answer thereto annexed
companee with the sectioni Yet that would exhaust
power Of the plaintiff under the statute. lny "9u
defendants had refused. and having once refused sea
/ cannot by any subsequent actlou ui'tst ,E
ffural II was necessary the Iainh 70 have snch IN
examination. Plaintiff charged that while they We're IN
secret cOnclavc certain OF the defendants V t ~ sen
ont the company the rival lines. He wanted me derO
sons of Messrs. Ross. Bacius, and hedfd7ley' Hrie
hi, answer denied that allegation, Yet within snort nt
they had obtained the dispositions OF three men a. 10
mat the Merchants Union Company were suffering ire
mcndous losses, IL high as $4,000 per month and pr,
yateiy authorized them 10 buy the stock OF the ora
companies. and expressed his Willingness to sell Ot inc
company saying that he could control Joh Il Greth; II
they could is.t these the stand they would de
yeOp such facts that they would not dare fultet 90 ne
end 1hs n Plaintiff on m. ide MAS now r TeI Them 10
What the reason OF then objection to going on ana
tSng what ney eS u Gy hsd no1nii a 70 og~rad
with technically il has not reduced them TO oiy ana
II plain that there something 10 conceal III
this anxiety Ia avoid an examination. ~
Mr. Pierce in reply said that was necessary iof MN
say somewhat outside Of the matter as ALLEGATIONS IN
voving not only the standing Of gentlemen IN the TX,
press Company. but their integrity as gentlemen ana
their standing In society had been made He had been
advised by Slocum that In private and c0nfden
tai interyewwith Messs Thaycr BOokstaver, they
had stated other members of the Board were
seeking 10 sell out the Company for their interest
that the Executive Copmttee were prepared TO do So
and would not call for the 10 per cent assessment iat
the General said he did not believe H. but under the
impression that they would make the call; mat MI
Thaycr then said If he he General would consent 10 20
against the call would buy for him. ~ the present low
rates. 1000 of the old Companies aud carry them
for him. and that the General informed MN ht II ue
Others were really going sell him out they might do So
that the General at once communicated The proposals
made TO him 10 his associates at Auburn ana i0d Ihat
similar proposals had been made them now thrS nan
good sufficient reason FOR not wishing 10 submit 10 te
tell All that relevant to the ease but were not willing
TO submit this fishing excursion. in which all their bus
ness. and not only their business but theu private rams
actions could be examined into. IL was ROT a proper
case for such examination, If such an examination
Judge Barnar,lI think the law il against yon Such
section should never have been PASSED ~ seeis 20 W.
only for the purpose OF opprcssOn but there u stahus
and can only interpret H. , -, II, -, -.
Mr. Sewell argued ~ some length that The law was
harsh and oppressive, inquistonal IN us nliute anu
would he proper for judges and counsel 10 exercise cf
ingenuity IN removing It's harslness Ihey iEd 40 once
ton 60 the deposition all the defendants being taken,
but not in the way that was suggested ~ -,
Mr. Brady ready now Ia take uen deposition p't
not TO have IL drawn for him by the counsel Tor me dc
PENDANTS. He preferred TO draw his own .
Mr. SewcI suggested that IT should he taken 10y Mr..
Brady without the Intervention OF referee The effort
here was 10 represent the defendants only giving their
evidence compusorlly before ieIsr'' his e'o'' NV
Mr. Brady was unwilling to act both a. counsel and
of course arise i'm taking IT, and the only proper way was
TO have the dispositions taken by question aud answer he
After some further discussion. the Court directed that
the examination proceed before the Referee on Monday
next. - .,.
Tiff Mr. Pierce and Mr. scwell for defendant
Before Mr. Justice PEcKIf,M
CAN GAMBLING NJ ruNTsnED'
n ~ John Citation.
The petitioner was Iied and convicted y the Sle-
cal Sessions for winning NJ gambling game rallied faro,
$50 fned $500 and imprisoned Ills counsel move ON
two grounds for his discharge. The first Was that keep
ing a faro-hank dealing faro was felony nd beyond
the jurisdiction ~ the Special Sessions Inc court held
that the complaint beng for dealing faro but winning
t faro, the objection not well taken. Counsel offered
read the evidence 10 show that the r,on1 Wac d,a
ing faro hut the Court held that the evidence not h
IT, The second objection was that the penalty was
excessive and bcy ond the pORcr- Of the Court. That
times the OF the winnings, ten times iiat amount
war excessive and beside. the Court of special sessions
could not inlct inc OF more tLan slbo except where
specially authorized. The Count gave The ics tlil ~
a. H. today, 10 produce authorities on Thee lniuh.
Mr.. Howe, Tor petitioner; Mr.. Blunt FOR Ihr People.
DECISIONS.
Before judge ~, KHAN.
Margaret VI. Stone agt. VIM. VI. Stonc.-Rcpprt of
referee confirmed and Judgment ~ divorce etrd rom
bed aud board: custody 81 children awarded t0 the PLAN
tn, with liberty 10 the defendant To Ni'ii hd zee lh'
Before Judge INGRAHAS.
Mary c. Snyder agt. Andrew Is. haldcr." Report oi
referee continued. and Judgment ~ di'"fc. -r'iied
Alexander ~. Burn Hgt H. Burn ct al.-Mrinoranda for
Am ingcyne art. Levi Ansevhlc ct al ordr settled.
SUPERIOR COCET- srLdtL TTRu.-B, Judge
JONTs.
DECISIONS. -
William Futtrich AIT. AndIcN Armstrong bli Oh
eSsrpiohI mn, ~ George Motion granted
IfizabcfH Lyon ag samuel J.. Miich"I-M"non
George W Brown ae1. Jonat!fD ". Harris Motion
granted.
.a..0Ht -