New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-05-19

horses Just after the collision that the horses had
been known TO be skittisb and shown for
their fright The defendants counsel moved 10 dismiss
the complaint on the ground that no negligence their
running away Of the horses proof Of negligence.
yet held that 1t was question for the jury The jury
gave the plaintiff verdict Tor $500.
In the United States District Court in adj
collision suit IA NJ Pentz ct al The Atlantic Mutual
Insurance Company The Mercantile Insurance Company
and Shaw agt the Steamship Aradne These were beis
for collision against the steamship Aradne, by the
owners of the brig William Edward ana the insurers Of
Der IS, 1865, Barnegat while the brig making
this port from Hayre and tho steamship was proceeding
starboard quarter and sunk in about an hoer.
vessel and cargo becoming total loss The value OF the
vessel and cargo about 100000 The original libel
was died by Penz et al, the owners OF tho brig who
steamship was bonded liberated from the custody of
the Marshal Afterward, and without notice 70 the
OF the brig and Shaw assgnor Of claims of various
sued in only Of these three bes and the Marshal
made return OtfOund" All three these ibelans now
desire to in oolbeants with the original libel
ants aad in Of Success share pro rata the pro-
ceeds in the hands OF the Court The Court after hearing
the arguments, allowed them 70 come In as cObeants,
so far ms 10 prove their claims; but in the event OF de-
cree being obtained against the steamship their right TO
r0 rata share unless there should be sufficient for all
beants would not be decided until after argument on
that question had been had AS TO the fault OF collision,
the usual c0untercharges Of negligence were made. and
tho evidence nearly all Of it, de 6es ess very conflict
Ing. Case still on.
In the summing up of the recent Erie case
before Judge Barnard Mr. oConor referhg 70 inc aS
the subject OF good deal OF cntiesDlnade the folOW
would not be fully considered. But We did think
the variety OF operations that had taken place
in this case from the multitude of suts chat had been
brought-crOss-suts In every dreetion-from running
hther and tbither TO catch Judge the endeavOrs to
Is w 40 to %d' decided
without being heard or duly considered and
abroad and published in newspapers and elsewhere
throwing Odum and reproach upon Of the Judges In
IL was among the things possible that those studous e
forts TO cast odum and dcredt upon all connected with
our side In this action and OF course the judge who de-
cides point In favor becomes far In degree con-
nected with side, since he gives his vote and 1udg
studous efforts mghtnO have been without degree
OF Influence with the mind OF any Judge that we came
that our whole merits should get fully spread before him,
and that his mind might be dsabused OF these lnpeaoh
ments that have been cast upon certain Judges. Now,
tho effort in that respect has been very aborous, and at
this stage OF the case, / invite your Honor Tor
moment TO look at the case as 1t Is presented
before you az you have patiently heard IT, with all Its
fncs, and with all ts legal features, and ask you
IL calculated bring 70 the slightest ground to
suspect that the Judge who allowed this Injunction.
aud aud jndcions View Of Inc law, and fair
and Just Inference from the facts and circumstances
placed before himl 1t is true that you may look ut
imam and not like his You may look at his manners
and not like them You may look at his associates and
you may not Ike them. You may learn that no goes
q fishing, and II you are not IN The habit Of
nshins you may Say he Js trhing fellow. and
don't give attention 10 his lawful business All these
things may be done but they unjust they are mat
ters which give 20 natural emotions IN the mind and
bound sill Of us, and very certain our Judges
IN general do try to guard against them as much
possible, while, we have shown In this case,
the merits with NJ, and q course OF
by the parties whom seek 10 enjon. When We show
an these things clearly, and show that the iunctons
rightly granted, mnnifesty granted IN right view
OF the law aud right view OF the facts apprchend
that the Judge stands vdicated We have right TO
fudge by their acts and dOings Human naturs Is
seen only by the great All-Seeng Eye Men Judge OF
each other but they have right 10 Judge OF motives,
and while the case clear and plainly
right, az we respectfully maintain the act OF al
Loving these njunctious aud so fully supported,
think may claim acquittal Of the Judge who has
been traduced, and has been thus ved-who mas been
prosecuted and who has been enjoined think we may
claim that in this ordeal in this trial. whatever may DC
his faults IN the estimation OF his enemies for know OF
none no comes forth perfectly indicated and sustained
Mr. John Burril followed with an eloquent argument
in favor OF dissolying tho Injunction