New-York tribune., 1868-04-23

impression that have hoard of injunesion against
ta ns pond Sa4po' % N sse .t 9SpG %
suit; think swore to the complaint about tae 9TH Of
March; don't remember when heard Of the injunction
Thomas G. shearman then sworn and testified that
he was the attorney OF MT Beden to bring the suit when
the complaint was completed there were several persons
Mr. Belden. but considered himself entitled 10 fee from
O. Are you connected In business with Mr. Fieldi A.
am Q. Are you partner OF that firm or on salaryi
MT Field objected He supposed that Mr. ShearInan
had ObecOn-cerainly he had noneto the relations
which Mr. ShesrmaD held to his firm being given II was
however IN the Of the bar that he protested against
this shameful question into the private relations OF
bers Of II 70 each other Mr. Clark said II also In the
of the bar which had been outraged by the proceed
ings OF the other side In attempting TO violate solemn
Injunction OF the court by conspiracy that lie insisted
on putting this question He did not desire to INQUIRE
he received whether that was onehundredth OF MS de-
TO inquire whether In furtherance of the conspiracy Mr.
Goulds attorneys were the promoters OF the Belden
SUIT MI Field earnestly protested asaas' tne sea tSs
Court 10 rebuke the language which had been used
ExJndge Davies called the attention OF the Court 70 ns
fact that the wituesss was attached 10 paper
charging conspiracy, not only ON llgants 70 5e sS suit
but on Judge OF the Court IL sbn was nt' MO igr FadT6e
plaintiff In that suit had his right charged con
on On ba isstS a Se must suffer for it. He had stated
that in respectful language Was tae @ rh NO.
was totally different from the bandyng OF such
epithes In Here they were bound 70 treat eaeh
other and the Court with respect Judge Barnard said
that If anything had been said contrary 10 the respect
dne M the Court IL must be rebuked Mr. Clark protested
that he intended no dsrespect the Court He had not
criticised the act their opponents in charging con-
spracy II they believed in IT, He hoped, on the trial. 70
show that tbe charge utterly unfOunded and in col
lateral proceeding he might have something to But
here he had right show that this Beden suit was got
up by Of cOnspiratOrs who knew when they got II up
that the charge was false Mr. FeldHad the right TO
close 1t appeared to him that was always mistake 10
challenge proof the challenge was sure TO be taken up e
peciay a mistake 20 challenge proof OF charge made
against Judge in the presence OF the Judge charged
The counsel had repeatedly been thrown down that inc
charges were be false when they were made he
regretted the necessity but must accept the chasnge
and he proposed TO go right on with tins witness " take
up the charges after another and show the ground
on which these charges were framed. .,... u.
Judge Barnard-The Court has no objection 10 your
going into any line OF testimony but viii say that In
this wide city, containing nearly million oi nhapltants'
where witness TO away mans life can be pro-
cured for S. will be bold enough or base enough 10
step the stand and that he had ~ do
Witness then testified that he had connection with the
firm of Mr.. Field he however had an independent bnsi
ness; his relations with Mr.. Fields firm were somewhat
peculiar: he called partner, aud In May next
would be partner. but was not now; MT Beldens sut
was commenced by him, and individually he had right OF
action for legal services against Mr. Bedep In the Sche
suit he had made an application to Judge lngraham IN
quest to modify injunction; 10 that matter ne did not
know in whose behalf he made IT. MT Belden he i, had
known for some time Mr.. Beldens father married hli1
10 his present wife; he brought the suit IN ms aV9r ana
~ m d % al ne mo 70 Oe N. form OF the suit he drew the
complaint between the hours OF and r. m OF the sth
lie brought the suit knowing from papers III the ONCE
that suits had been brough he did not remember
exactly what papers. - -
IN.
inatiOn suspended. aud Judge Gilbert sworn.
He remembered granting Injunction about the 9th OF
March He was applied to Tor 1t at ms house lie was
unwel. 1t was between aud p m Mr. Jenckes made
the application for H. and after his determination that he
would not grant the injunction applied for he was tod
Mr. Field there He refused to grant an Injunction
interfering with the action OF another Judge lie was hot
informed OF what Judge Barnard had enOined. After
his first refusal he invited Mr. Field in he could not re-
member that Mr.. Field Dudley Field said anything.
(Order shown the Judge The nterlneation, bona de,
are In my hand writing the words pencil
Yes in pencil but this not 70 interiors with the judi
S Ws OF resd sa1 70 e ST Mr. ene There were
two atdavits presented which Mr. JencRes READ 10 me
presume the & whole copat & Ss tsSd 10 e 0 'H0
Xamined-Dd not remember when he nrst heard
Judge Barnard but did not know their tenorn fact.
Mr Jenckes said they had been granted the statement
Of Mr. Jenckes was that ahdaylts were being Issued
hafadozen day or some such extravagaDt expression
Sunday Mr.. Jenckes had handed me some papers Tor
mandaInus he said hardly anything that day ON Mon
day he tried TO convince me u was case Tor nanda
mus; IL application on Delan OF some Other gem
temen for the of this stock referred Mr. Jenckes
TO two to show that mandamus was not ms remedy
action for damages would lie Mr. Jenekes seemed
much disappointed aud asked what remedy could I've had
and suggested case might be made Tor mandatory IN
junction; when was applied To- htst rciuSod an
nard issuing inJunctons, and the COMPANY
threatened with ruin; others were bringing OF hlehd
ca TO Srng % new Iad Mr. % Field Was nen Brought IN
and corrected the order; read II over ana men We
the words bona Hde ain very the impednent of
Injunction not mentioned the impedneMt 10 De
is that neither Mr. Jenckes or Mr. Field brought the In
junction Of Judge Barnard TO my attention; difficulty
verted think have told all that said; what
said was about the company being trodden down by
suits don't remember all that was said, but AIN pretty
sure no particular impeachment was mentioned .
Q. viii you he kind enough to look, aud say whether
ANYTHING In the Injunction is not you ordered III
A not perceive anything 30 far as See 1t is US
Redirect-The name Of the attorney not, think.
The Court was then adjourned till this morning at IL