New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-11-24

,h boEs have not been altered. nor have any false
entries been made since the OCTOBER ,bat he believes
Could Fiske. and Lane are deNounE me, ~ a. Tel
business of the company, ana that Jus "a''ei' A'
Could Fske and Lane deny oath any tampenOs
Jo.ph Aeron swears that commission was pG e 10
any officers Of the company iQI ue mean nLrchnso for
| hawken property, and tha' war '-'''f
'ny iS nrr Eet agent swears that various reforms
h1ye Ge9 pc ge1eIa snperntendent that Mr.
GOuids administration mas peen s,3y 1.Dn Greatly i'm
that all The affairs Of the company nave pcoi si''''
Horao Otis also declares the energy ana a eeonSmy
the present administration ana us huSy az" aS yves
arc beyond those Of previous n1 me
The same account as Mr. MorOsni as 70 ING Ie''O" '
| unusually early closing Of the books ,,, .as hava
Could Fisk and Lane swear no conVcrtlne polu' 're
been issued since the new Board OF Drec'o' WV
Mr. Burriil stated that they had IN preparation an am
uScoD viii t aud OF tie transactions Of the Company
since he had President, showing That he hAd not
Jndge Sutherland inquired how this could be so con
| sistenty with Gould's petition. ., NJ. Could
Mr.. Burrill said there was no adihissioh VI 4U' '
! that lac had issued any STOCK - -, por,or
claimed that since the October election they had noI
issued any stock except III the conversion Oh or"
Mr. PerrcuOnt claimed that the date was i1
had all been issued during the administration OF Ho,
Fisk aud Lane. Mr. Burrlll asked that inc cssS NC '
! pagpd 10 allow Mr. GOulds affidavit to be signed =.
The Court refused saying that the only heHilaIon nc
had was that desired they might have me pSheh "
tese aldayits the appeal IL could not De uouO'ou'
nom their papers that there had been large over ~ue
he assumed that they would deny the SPECIFIC ch2Iges
Judge PerrepOnt and said he bad been intornea
that while this time was being wasted atotne,
lug was being instituted To destroy the elect OF lls
Judge Sutherland SAID was utterly Impossible or MN;
in view of the facts before him as 10 the former su anu
to the immediate actions mere, 20 noio , comnanv
men were proper administrators Tor TINS great Cony'
locations az the other side and 10 deny them the posi-.
bity of DENYING them. aud on this To arrest the action
ne nrnoratIon NJ nm expense Of $4,000 TO receiver
take II Of the hands Of the Directors uhaous
Tho judge SAID they through with their papers
NJ RmrrIi tRcn called attention to the Injunction IS
sued IN the suit Of Belmont ana SAID mere was 'ho ~
Mr.. Pierrepont- Already violated.
Mr. BurrllNO, IL If not but 1t does not mat'ft With,
er not Lere is this injunction when prevents any
Mr Perepont said they had had experience OF the way
| in which iuiuuctOns were dsTegdrded last year 80 -,
Mr. Burrin further urged an adjournment. lie as
| claimed all knowledge OF any other proceeding lie
made the application i'll good faith The counsel were
I'm peculiar position. Their clients had asked them 20
40 Sunday TO prepare these ahdaylts' tneyGte
COMMUNICATING 70 UOr, on sunday had assured mem
there was no danger the would be forced on Ihey
we're thus placed in false position. o,.oo
ID Iudgf sutherland said lie must decide al once.
judge Vduderpoel hoped not before they were heau
Jaw Gouds affidavit was read. IT calls attention 70
tho fact that every material allegation IL on INFORMATION
and belief that these charges rest on the hdlVs OF
work and Drew both former officers and both false 10
their trust He became President on the 3Oth OF Jy
AID from that time devoted himself 10 the OF
the Company. and appeals 10 the results To Nldcate
HIM M brow ceased 90 be Director OH the 10th of
u a
could became Treasurer OF the Company on inc Sth OF
July. That an the Old ngauons We're set'ieI piUlo i5
became President. and against the VIII 9i pom hls,l
II aud Iiske. They finally arqucsced ana uluer n@t az
Tangement a large sum- s9250, was paid to sehrl' ON
OF pad Work, then Director Of the Company lie had
d not been informed OF the proposed setlechl p.
Eldridgc denies that be entered into combination
to with se and control the funds of the Company
RS for HE their benefit that ne has defdudcd any
NJ stockholders. He denies That Tie whole cou ui
IVY the Company was given to them ont says ih"t 'iei
er Thompson and Davis attended on me Executive toHH
"a tee when in He denies that the resignation OF Eu
G ridge procured Iy me purchase 81 any 1Cqs "a T
"a Boston. Hartford and Brio Iiryad oomp2iy ,nt SiH
wsy company. he received az Treasurer from prey
~ portion OK the funds OF The Company and some portion
r. him being proceeds Of the convertible bonds was
kept separate from Tor the statutory purposes Tie
. lie says an arrangement vas made by Eldndge Win
Drew, Work. and others, in settlement Of the old Suits
which IdridgC states 20 have been tlis Cornelius Van.
dcrblt and other parties 20 Dc relieved Of s5o@0 81
,io oIt ns 20 We 6oTqt at so Drew Was 10 retire
y the cOueTng parties 10 receive Sl25o0O0 OF Hartford
paid and Drew TO pay sj4OOOo his advances and
terest This arrangement accepted aud carried ont
FOR closing hooks earlier than usual and denies tbat
elected by larger minority than tho number OF shares
which were voted on by persons VINO had parted win
that tho election thcro has been meeting Of the
Directors lie denies that the Issue Of the stock has been
use, for any OF the charged the complaint. All
Tho bonds issued nave been issued by authority Of the
Poarl of D,rcctors aud he denies iat any of HE uoncv-
OF tho Company under his control individually aud
denies that they not in the treasury ~ The Company
OF in bank 90 the credit Of the Company. Ile de-
that Of the moneys have been removed beyond
the jurisdiction Of the Court, have been taken TO
Canada, on have been used M private speculation. lie
denies that there Is any bylaw requiring stockholders 10
fhc certificate by inserting subject 10 the y-iaws If
the Company but he AYERS that makes 10 change IN TIC
legal effect OF the certificates.
Mr. Burll said that they would present their case
these imperfect andayits. The prayer OF the complaint
was Tor receiver ms involved ue removal ~ inc
directors. 10 had been decided that director could not
be- removed on the prayer stakeholder. Tie power
could only be exercised on the application O an Attorney
General or IN salt b. director lie cited tie case Of
Judge sutherland have no doubt " the power Of the
Court 70 te care OF property likely % be wasted lude
AIr BuiIil-If = receiver is appontod OF an the pror
rrty OF ralrOad corporation, either company must
!y the receiver Ia the old Erie cases a var rs AM
pgntci Of a sreclfr fund moi interferIg win me nm
lions Of the directors. No could be found the
appointment OF a receiver II tho property of a corpora
Application OF stockholdcr And no such jurisdiction
had ever existed IN the courts by common law non had
aUy been conferred by statute Mr. Burnl cited several
cases TO this point.
Judge sutherland said he did that tho appoint
ment OF receiver OF The property was necessarily the
removal Of the directors.
Nj Porter desired cali the attention Of the Court 10
the fact that he asked to rcOye the directors on the
ground OF naeasnce aud TO that end 10 appoint re-
cciNof Hs honor had power to do this All the
referred 10 by his Honor had been decided in Court
oi Appeals and they conclusive against such pow
en- Inc COURTS whole power was contained IN one
uoD OF tho statute, which gave IL power, among other
things, 20 suspend wruugdOlug director Here all were
sought 10 he suspended and this power cOuld only ex
creased by the Attorney General director or creditor
Nehertho Attorney General director nora creditor al-
piled here. The Court was limited by the decisions the
Court Oi Appeals aud by the General Term all OF which
against The claim OF lie Other side.
Mr.. Porrepont answered the defendants IL they had
succeeded nothing they had succeeded in gaining
time II they did not find between then and l2 o'clock
to-day what the object II this delay. Mr Pierrcp0nt
proceeded 70 argue that Of the cited had any
thing % 10 with the bar The argument on tie
other side had been that whatever the by the
tees Hslt be- the stockholders, tho oeSus que trust,
could not have 10 stopped
judge Sutherland sail that no had doubt Of the