New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-07-03
SUPREME COURT-CHANBERs. Before Mr. Justice
BARNARD.

THE WAR OF THE EMPRESS CoMPANIEs-oRDER AND
COUNTER. oRDER-wHOsE AFRAID
The present motion i the result Of three orders,
The first obtained BY the plaintiff for the eSaTna S0S Of
second order obtained by the defendants 10 show
cause why the first order should not be vacated TINS
order was retuTnabe Monday next. The third AID
Isst order was an order reurnabe yesterday, show
cause why the second order should not he vacated
Meanwhile, yeste day morning an order made III Tue on
Judicial District Of which the following is an abstract
SSpSsxr Cornr-wihsm Bsnrey Treasurer &c. the Nor
Express stephen Waterbury and others
m ibs name OF stephen Ws6ury al John \ KNAPP ami oie
ad from taLag any steps 81 proceedings therein OF Any %|sI % To
hing to interfere With obstne the business Of The +d
SuSSss Of re SAD Mc5g r%oR COMPANY OF to 1e
o. meddng with be Company
The business Of the said Company until he farther oer
this cOait-bsied Syracuse Juy l. 1881 LIZ kol MoASN
MI Brady read the aHdavits on behalf Of the plaintiff
XEv.foHk SUPREME COrars Waterbury sgt : Ross ct al
or BIS o~h .s' On TIE E'h gay o. 1sss s' a aP@a H. W.
Knapp the ~ Nholss Hotel said City fNewiok and
% gS s toe e % so nS & a sqs 81 1
prrs through M Pierce horePrr,en'c .he sgre,d
the sd city the morning the 9th day Of Juue 1867 ~ 10
n Sri se hat on Ike 2ih dy J1re 1907 called upon Eore
r. Ross Calvin Baku, the once Of he Merchants Union In
poa hea All tbsy through the ,aid Mr. Pierce agreed i've
l'h 81 Jaoe 1901 At ii ocock the
arrangement aud eer that the said persn, upon whom 'ah de
mana W. n''' '' -''' ." '''' Rossnr s GKsrs
An AFFIDAVIT OF Mr.. Traphagen was also read 70 the
effect that ON the 27th Brady and himself awaited the
defendants their Office VINO were TO have come there
1 Lead i 81 hen Mr. Feros appeared and postponed the
matter TIL The next day, when Dir Pierce Judge Allen
and Judge C0IUstOck appeared and offered the plain
fis attorneys that if they would state the points
which they desired the defendants adavs they would
furnish them .
MI Irdy argued that the examination should proceed
AZ once Here suit TO have the Merchants Union
Express Company wound up with grave charges against
they had had interviews with the agents OF the com
psues with view 10 sell out The company 10 them ana
ave them a monopoly. When this suit was commenced
an order FOR the examination OF these parties had been
made The ground OF their refusal 70 give atdsys Oh
proceedings fOI an injunction ana receiNef Ihe am
davis " Me JUhn A. Green aud Mr. 11apbagen showed
what this refusal was Tie parties .ad mel thcth anu
had refused 20 around the next day ana give thelr
dispositions, but at the time appointed they IA" no, az
teuded. but heir counsel Mrsss. Allen, Pierce lOm
stOck and made proposition mat II pialntl1s al
tOneys would state the pouis GA wnch tey desired hs
defendants testimony they would draw theul On mat
refusal Tor IL nothing elsethe order for their exam
inatiOn obtained on that the TWO orders 70 snow
cause made aud this nOInng they were met ny fs
injunction, which ne applied 90 nave vacated ~ once
Ths injunction probably broad enough 10 prevent
the from hearing this motion IL was certainly an
extraordinary ono. Here MI. Brady read the ii1uDc
ton iD the action in which this injunction was granted
Qua OF the defendants IN the original actl0u was
the Oamt,u ana there was nothing IN Ms .ali
which could not ne settled ia the present acton No
bOdy could in any way he prtudced by the present dis
cussiOn.
ing from the does piece OF ignorance or gross
Mr. P;erce--I only received this from the counsel in
that suit for service and know nothing further VI A.
Mr. 3eWe-I do not suppose that Judge Morgan, when
he Granted this order knew Of the proceedings here
Justice BaruardAre there any decisions on THIS 4ues-
Mr. se~eIl-One; but that given before the statute
Mr. Brady-1 apply for the dissolution OF THE IN
junction. 80,
Mr. Justice BaTDafd-Ihat II grained go iaf IN ms mo-
ton is concerned.
Mr. Brady argued that The Cer Of The defendants, vas