The New York herald., 1868-03-24
NEW YORK CITY.
TIE COURTS.


WtUtdm B. SEtdnlOre; Same rs Frederick A. Lane;
Same ps. j. O. Bancroft DaUfs.-In this court yester.
day morning an immense array of counsel, engaged
on both sides Of the great Erie litigation were In at
tendance, as the case, 1t was expected, would be
brought up on several distinct motions.
Mr.. Rapallo moved that the matters Of the proceed
ings In contempt against the above named parties,
directors Of the Erie Railway Company be referred
to referee to take proof OF the facts alleged In the
interrogatories and cross interrogatories
which had been filed.
Mr.. Field would like to know what authority the
court had for ordering re ference In the The
statute provided for reference upon the presenta-
tation Of proofs on either side but the code had
reference to these proceedings and there was no
provision for reference In such cases.
Edwards PierpOnt said that in the case or Mr. Lane
the answers which had been filed showed that he
was absent from the city at the time these charges
were made, and with the exception OF one single
fact his answer was denial OF knowledge OF every
issue made.
Mr.. Eaton, who appeared for Mr.. Skidmore, said
that in his case there was nothing but what the court
would go into and hear, while the sending Of the
case to referee might only result In an nterminable
Mr.. Vanderpoel said the statute gave either party
the right to show further proofs, and in this matter
1t would not be denied that the answers filed denied
certain OF the facts charged.
Mr. Pierpont, in answer to q question by Judge
Barnard said shat so far as violation OF the njunc
tiOn alleged against the parties represented by
himself, it was not even pretended that the njunc
never made party to the proceedings.
| Mr.. Field suggested that the court hear the inter-
rogatores read and then determine whether refer
| ence was needed.
Mr.. Rapallo considered that the question was SIM
ply whether his Honor would take the proof before
TIE court or whether he would send 1t 10 referee.
! Mr.. Pierpont opposed the reference so far as his
client was served, Mr.. Lane having been out oftown
| al the time OF the violation OF the injunction.
| LX-Judge Henry q. Davies contended that II SER
vice OF the injunction was made upon the solicitors
OF the parties, the parties charged could not then
plead ignorance OF the fact II had been held by the
Court of Appeals that service upon the solicitor was
Mr Pierpont aid not think that case applied here;
that was where party had been served with an in
| junction ana the solicitor had appeared.
hr. Rapal0 said it was alleged in the papers that
all these parties were present at the meeting OF the
board OF directors and voled TO ratify the action OF
the executive committee III issuing this Sl0 000 900
Of stock. 1t was wholly unnecessary for the purpose
Of this proceeding that these directors should be
ceeded against that made the directors parties the
suit, as the corporation could only act through its
| officers.
Judge Barnard asked what answer was made by
Mr. Lane to the allegation mat at Subsequent meet
Ing OF the board he voted TO faty the action OF the
| previous meeting OF the board.
MIR. Nanderpoel replied that Mr.. Lane said in his
answer that he did not know What the injunction
| March.
After little further discussion Judge Barnard said
that it would be impossible 1or HIM 10 hear these
matters day after day in consequence of other
gagements. 1t seemed proper to him that the case
should be sent before Of the court TO take
the proofs and this matter would be accordingly re-
ferred to John b. Haskn to take proofs OF the mat
tiers ut issue by the interOgaores and crossnterro
gatOries touching the contempt alleged, and that the
| referee report to the court.
James /. Brady stated that II the court pleased,
! he would prefer to have some other person ap-
| pointed as referee than Mr.. Haskin. 1t was not
| quite certain what range the examination might
| terms personally with Mr.. Haskin he would prefer
to have the matter sent before Mr. Leonard. In this
case there had been charges OF nerestedness in the
4 litigation made against q party with whom Mr..
| Haskin was in terms Of very close friendship, and
it seemed more proper to him that it should be
| Judge Barnard said that the referee had no dis
cretionary power whatever in such case, and
/ would merely take such testimony US was offered
to him, and report to the court.
| MIR. Brady-Well sir, he is Objectionable to u.s.
have some reason for 1t.
Mr.. Rapallo-I suggested Mr.. Leonard some time
since, and am willing that the matter should so
Mr. Brady-we accept him.
Judge Barnard said that in regard to the referee
named the court had known him intimately for many
years and had the fullest confidence in him. Mr..
/ Leonard was already engaged IN the reference re-
attend to two references, both Of which in the
same litigation and would perhaps require consider
the Sheriff returned that in the cases Of the at
tachments issued against Jay, Gould, James Fisk,
| them within his bailInent and piuytes attachment
i was accordingly, upon motion Of Mr.. Rapallo,
4 directed TO issue against them.
The following is copy OF the order appointing
| the referee in the contempt proceeding against
Messrs lane, skidmore, Diven and Davis:
| The defendant having filed his answers to the in
terrogations heretofore filed in the above entitled
matter, and & Mr.. appearing as counsel for said
people:-on motion Of Marshall B. Champiain, At
torhey General, it is ordered that the hearing in
jouned to the & 4th day Of April, 1885, at II 4. NJ,
and the plaintins moving for reference
as hereby ordered, to. which the defendant
at.tn naQ1 Anftk in hn nr
which objection the court ovcrruled. 1t is hereby
| further ordered THAT John b. Haskin be and he Is
proofs concerning the said alleged contempt as
shall be produced by either party, and that he report
the same to the court and that such reference pro-
ceed on summons by the referee to either party Of
| two days to attend before him on such days and
times as such referee shall appoint or TO which the
GEORGE G. BARNARD, J. SC.
Mr.. Rapalo then stated that there were one or two
other matters in connection with the which had
| been set down for to-day-the motion for the con-
lnuance OF the injunction in the proceedings against
Daniel Drew and the proceeding by the Attorney
General, which had In effect been stayed. The court
directed these matters to be adjourned until Monday
| next.
Mr. Rapalo then called up the motion for the con.
tinuance OF The injunction granted by Judge CardoZ0
Ia the suit OF Bloodgood VS.. the Erie Railway Com
pany, &c, and which enoined all meetings of the
board OF directors so long as Frank Work was
Guided.
Mr.. Field objected and said that that motion should
be brought on before Judge Cardo2o.
After little discussion on this point the parties
| went before Judge Card0z0 who was sitting at spe
cial term, In the adjoining building NEW Court IIouse
and Mr.. Rapailo here moved the same matter.
Judge Cardozo said that when he granted that in
junction he did not understand that the case would
ever be brought up for argument before him, and he
certainly did not wish To take any part In this itga
ton whatever lie could not see what objection
there could to the case being turned over 20 the
| Justice before whom all the proceedings had been
| heard thus far.
MIR. Brady and Mr.. Field objected to the matter so
far as this branch of the was concerned being
sent before Judge Barnard, and after little urging
the court set down the motion for Monday next.
SUPERIOR COUHT-SfECAL TENN