New-York tribune., 1868-04-17
THE GREAT ERIE VAR.

FOR conompt I'm disobeyng the Injunction In the Schel
suit against Issuing the stock were set down Tor yes
terday, at p IN. At that hour, notwithstanding the
rain the courtroom was pretty we'll filed The counsel
on both sides were present with the exception OF Mr'
OConor. Nothing however, OF interest was done "hen
Judge Barnard appeared he inquired II all the testimony
was In in the Gould case Mr. Yapderpoe replied tha tho
evidence had not been completed In any OF the cases
They were proceeding rapidly they could but tho
had report to submit TO the Court In reference
and ask the direction Of tho Court In reference 70 IT,
Mr. Haskins report was then read showing DIT es
enforce the answering OF the Questions the agreeit @
Of the S eoSnse udSe 10 '1 caono s refusal u have
1t submitted TO him, ana intlmatlng ,i tna'
ion In ths connection Mr. yanderpoel read the testi
mony OF Mr. and Others, taken before MI hasK' '
erton said they desired decision not only on tnese
particular questions but some rule as TO the @
OF Testimony and the power OF the referee Judge bhr
nard said that rule OF evidence IN this matter resSd
the same principles as ia trial at Circuit ana t9o 70
referee had power compel answers but IN Order 70
prevent delay he had arranged to have ~ 60 on III 1
tuye mott Tet been m able to decide the matters before
All these matters would therefore stand over tl Mondy
next ut a. In when he would be present In the auO
INK room Mr. Clarke asked him. IN order to the arrange.
Of counsePs engagements, II u would then go on
noelv arranged for his absence the General Term
so that matter might be closed up ~ soon as possible
tered the continuance Of the proceedings against ho
persons who were served WIN aiaeNSus da hnap % 40
served. Served '''"'"'N'"'' '''''"'' ''''' "'' w
ruE EXAMINATION IN THE "CoNTEMPT" CASE
CONTINUED.
As the examination in the matter OF contempt
OF court alleged against Mr. j. C. Bancroft DAVIS one OF
the Erie Railway Directors progresses, the becomes
more and interesting Yesterday tho scenes before
John Haskn, esq., the Referee were quito spicy. the
counsel on each side nduging In an amount OF legal
sparing that lent decided zest to the proceedings The
examination was resumed at II a. m. Messrs Clark ana
Nanderpoc conducting the prosecution, ana Messs
Mr. William Bcldcn who was on the witness stand when
the adjournment on Wednesday took place. was recalled
for tie prosecution, when Mr. Clark put the follow
ing question: q In your complaint IN the action 1et1de lore
various consultations had been had between Messr SGr
George c. BARNARD and Others VIII you state the name
Of the person party who gave you that lhioraton
interrupted by Mr. Clark. who insisted that tho answer
about 20 be given would not be responsive ana desired
the Referee 10 take down none but direct reply 70 Ms
question Tho Referee ntmaod that such would be MS
course Mr. Eaton objected to the question as being iel
eyant The objection was noted by the Referee.
The witness saidThe fact is 80 well known that do
not why should be called upon TO single out the
name OF any particular individual
Mr. CLARK objected this anSYcr; the question was re-
peated and responsive answer demanded The witness
reped-As stated In my reply to roylous question:
II shall be deemed necessary 10 have the facts stated
satisfactorily proven, can give the names OF responsl
seek 10 draw this controversy any party not directly
connected with IT, but If the parties carrying on theso
Here SIr Clark again interrupted the witness, and in
sisted On responsive answer 10 ms question.
Witness-We are breaking very serious ground, Mt
Referee and wish 20 state IN the first place that do
nos 40 20 81 my own VIII s an'"'H "'
Mr. Clark-I Will alter the question II You wish-note
that claim IL has not been answered O. Can you rte
the ~ the person party that gave you the nfor
nation 10 the consultation. or alleged consulthtlonl
party A. prefer not 10 do q At what place was
your complaint I'm the before Judge Gilbert drawnt
you the evening q the Ith Of March lsiSi have
no recollection. O. Were you at Mr. Fields housei A.
buya hsgp a Do f1m
A. have recollection about IL, SIR q Did you sec
Mr.. Groespeck Mr.. Could on that evening" A. IL s
impossible for me To say, Sir z. When and where dd
YOU make oath TO your complaint IN the SAT- before Jndse
Gberti A. believe IN The office OF the MessIs req.
the dayr trS "a 4 do not know & Had YOU at that time
the possession under the control Of firm Of Fisk
Bclden CO.. any cerhcates Of stock OF INC Ere h9 a
question: aud the witness declined 10 answer t. q Had
at that tmo applied to any pe,%on % to come TO f EGar
Bclden 4 Co OF stock Of the Erie Railway Company
decline 10 answer O. Were there In the office OF fisk
Belden Co. tho 9TH doy Of March 1865 any books
containing stock certificates OF the Eric Railway Com
pany dated March 1881 II so, state how many such
books there Were and how many certificates each book
cline To- answer o. there We're any such books in your
possession day. from whom did you receive them
of Fisk, Belden Co. the 9TH day Of Mach 1905.
holder OF any convertible bonds Of the Erie Railway
directexamnailon was here closed.
Mr.. David D. Field then commenced the crosseSamina-
| tOn by asking: q. In your direct examination you
stated that you had information contained In your com
plaut, from current conversation the street Please
state what that current conversation was.
The time from this point TIL the adjournment was taken
up discussing PropreD OF the question and the ad
testimony given BY The witness respecting current rumor
the street. volunteered and was not responsive to
the question put and no objected To the witness giving
testimony as 70 current conversation as inadn-slbe
simply FOR tho purpose of enabling the witness TO doiame
Mr. Field asked the Referee II he would now 80 back on
his former ruling that he would put All the questions
Tho Referee said he now satisfied that no had the
power 10 insist upon tho witnesses giving responsive an
swers. lie would therefore rule that upon this cXanna
he would not take rresponslye answers when he was
satisfied that tho answers were given for purposes lot
legitimate 10 the order OF reference.
MIR HedYou before took the answer Of the witness
respecting current COnycrsatlOn
Reforeef the other side move II will strike out that
Mr. Fied"Is Il necessary to suggest that course sub
NIT have night TO take the entire testimony Of the
wtness when you have taken part The testimony
admissible either Ia chief IN crosseAamipatOn. Tho
witness IL willing 10 give the sources Of Information
on which he had made his complaint VIC claim The right
hr Clark objected ychcmouy to the wltnoss being al
lowed TO proceed as he VIA simply domming the Judge
M Mr. Gi'Si5 Tield-what others,
Mr. olark-MT; Parker and hr Cram.
NJ. Ecld-Nnl you examine Mr. CraDet
Counsel further denounced Mr. Belden for attempting
the OF HIS informants putting Hes In tho mouths
OF certain men, and not giving ny the names of his III
Mr Clark moved that the previous part OF Mr. Bedens
testimony TOUCHING current conversation" be stricken
out
Mr. Eaton objected any such being taken and
proceeded 10 sustain his objection length. II the
Referee, after admitting answers to questions ON the
direct examination, 10 refuse 20 admit them
when the defense sought elicit them the act would be
q despoto He would be assuming more power than
the ChiefJuseo Chancellor Kent ever thought OF en-
ercisng He excepted TO the Referees striking out the
answer aud denied ms authority 10 decide such motion
had been made or to otherwise alter the minutes he
had taken in the proceeding before him. except for tho
purpose Of correcting them IL erroneous.
The Referee-I do not decide n motion 60 strike out
but the request Of counsel 70 from tue minutes
an gnHwer u witness which wholly iTrespOnsye to
,h. nnt a,d ,.hich taLap no t6 Roteree