The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-03-19
TIE GREAT RAILROAD war.
The Allegations Of Conspiracy Age INST Judge
Barnard, Cornelius Vanderbilt and Others.
The Charges Denied in Aiadayits by All
the Parties Accused.
THE INJUNCTION Dlssoi WE'D.
SUPREME cuu1r 0sooxLyHl-spEcul TENN.
BefO re Judge Gilbert.

he
vandeToni Rtcne rd Scnea Au0,.sazs Sc1.eu, james
a. BancSer, Geo roe G BARNARD Frank Work, The
ATe ha1'cdg Company, AarSAau B. ChaMplain
-A1oTTte0 Gene raj or The State Of Netc YorE, ana
seventeen 0h srs-Tstis is quit brought byplantiG,
who Is ockhoaaer In the Erie Railway Com
pany' IN which he prays that the defend
anus De 'enjonea from IN any manner insti-
tutns OF aiding the prosecution OF any legal
proceedir g whatever having for Its object the 70
moval OF the dire ctors or officers Of the Erie Railway
Vohpau or an! Of them or for the appointment OF
recep er OF vi property part Of IT. or restrain
aug Im carryi ng out OF any agreement or contract
hereo ,fore ID ade ty the company, and nom aiding
IN Sly de2r ee whatever, or carrying on any pro-
seesing air eady commenced that Frank Work be
restrained oy injuu ction from getting as director or
'oher ono ;er OF gLe company; that the company be
required to issue stock in accordance with the terms
Oh is coz vertble bonds upon demand Of the holders
:" seca bonds; that the said directors, except
ing work, be- required to continue in the
perior lance Of their proper functions directors,
"c' ms SO it was counter to the one
pres usly cor nmenoed in the name Of Richard Sche
asalI 81 the faction in which an order Of In
juhcs ON wa granted by Judge George @. Barnard
enjrning u e directors from holding any meeting
WiSie Franz Work was excluded (he having been en-
JoEaed Hom acting as director by an Injunction
granted by Judge Bacom at the suit OF James Fisk,
Sr, few lays previously. The injunction in the
SUIT OF Sci e also restrained the ocers Of the COM
pany fro m issuing or creating or increasing the
capital took Of the company, from converting its
bonds nto stock, contracting with or leasing
property of other companies, and from paying any
counsel fees other legal expenses which might be
INQUIRE In the suit Of Fisk. In the present
suit elden vs. Vanderbilt, Barnard ct ALL it
was Az charged that Judge Barnard, the Wander
bilts rank Work and others had entered into 80
comoi nation to speculate in the stock Of the Erie
10 nj tlna
couf for the purpose Of aiding their speculatons,
for ;hich purpose they had yarious consultations
tose' herr &c.
W on the complaint and affidavits Of the plaintiff,
Bed en- and one Smith, Mr.. Justice Gilbert, of the
sup RENE Court, Kings county, issued order Of
ten porary injunction granting the relief prayed for
rs; above stated and enjoning the defendants from
do ng any act in furtherance Of said company" and
re' uring the defendants to show cause, on the 18th
81 yof March, why the injunction should not be made
P rpetua,.
Yesterday morning, in accordance with this latter
revision Of the order, Messrs. Charles A. Rapao,
Iorace +. Clark and James B. Metcaf appeared in
mis- as counsel for the defendants and Thomas
: J. Shearman for the paintir
Mr.. Clark and moved the hearing Of the mo-
ton, when Mr.. Sherman stated that he was the
attorney In this suit and that Mr. Field and other
gentlemen who were engaged as counsel in
the case were absent, being engaged in arguing
the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Com
panys before Judge Cardozo, in New York city.
Mr. Fullerton, associated counsel for the defend
ants in this suit, also engaged in that
fore Judge Cardozo.
Mr.. Clark asked whether the gentleman was making
emotion for an adjournment, and II 30 whether he
intended to make 1t upon aldavits verbal state
ments.
Mr.. Sherman stated that he was moving post
ponement without afidavits, but would procure
fyt.-r
davts, and objected to any adjournment Mr.. Shear
then stated as his grounds for asking that the
motion be allowed to stand over first, that Mr.. Full
lerton had on the preceding day objected to ad-
journment in the Chicago and Rock Island
suit although he was engaged counsel
In this case also, and, secondly, that he shearman
desired to make every effort that the cir
Cumstances would allow to obtain evidence
upon which to support the motion to continue the in
junction. He desired not to make 80 serious charges
these without positive evidence in order to sustain
course adopted by the plaintiffs counsel.
Judge Gilbert asked whether they had any evidence
hunt up evidence, to which Nj. shearman stated in
effect that they had satisfactory evidence far AZ
concusive-a thing that 1t was found difficult to do,
owing TO the unwiingness OF parties who had given
the original Information to make affdavtS TO the
same erect Not more than week would be required.
Mr.. Clark said that were there no very great In
terests at stake, or no great wrongs done In this
case he would make resistance to the application
70 adjourn. But among the most extraordinary facts
connected with this extraordinary was this
application now made; but IT was his duty, what
ever might be the result Of the application, to insist
upon an immediate hearing The court had been de-
ceived when this order was applied for, and he de-
sired to state to the court now in order that It might
fully understand IL, what was the effect Of this In
junction and what would be the result OF postpone
ment even for week: He did not know what exam
inaton his Honor had given the case when the order
sppsd Gvs q, ne @ S had
granted an Injunction which In Its terms authorized
certain persons to violate several other njunctons
and orders previously made and that its result had
been the putting upon the market by unprincipled
men OF about $40 600 900 Of stock in an illegal and
dishc nest manner: Mr. Clark then proceeded to ex-
plain the nature OF the original suit N Frank Work
against the Erie Railway Company, Daniel Drew and
others in which an accounting is prayed for Of the
proceeds OF the tyeight thousand shares alleged
have been Illegally obtained by Drew from the COM
pany, when Mr.. shearman objected 10 his going into
motion.
After some discussion the court remarked that It
was general rule that where party applies for an
injunction and alleged gross wrongs or frauds his
grounds OF application he rs bound to make out his
case, and when he asks for single instant's delay
upon such motion as this he must show very strong
reasons for his request.
MT Clark assumed that the other side desired q
continuance OF the injunction, and contended that
had the court been aware OF the dsgraceful practice
resorted to In the matter 1t would never have signed
the order. IL was an application based upon
allegations that were known to be false and
fictitious and he would not believe, until the court
30 informed him nom the bench that when his
Honor signed that order he was made fully aware OF
she facts Involved. He would ask upon what secu-
rty this order which allowed these parties issue
$40 900 600 OF fictitious stock and place It upon the
community was granted.
Judge Gilbert said that security was given In
the sum OF S. 000 but when the order was applied
for he expressly refused TO grant any Injunction In
any pending proceeding, and struck out Oil that por
Ntion which he thought might have that erect.
( Mr Clark said that though this Injunction was
prohbtory In a terms as against the defendants II
twas mandatory TO the directors In enjoning them,
{9s IL did not TO refuse or neglect TO perform the
iAuties OF their Offices and had In that way been the
Neans OF putting the ten millions upon the market.
iAn answer 10 suggestion By the gentleman on the
C@her side he would admit that there were great
many counsel employed on the side OF the defeRce
An this suit; but he was also informed by Mr..
Sch III, who was present in court, that at least
half . dozen counsel engaged on behalf
on thv parties interested IN the Erie Railway
Compa w. There were proceedings also to-day be-