New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-12-08
TIE ERIE WAR.
.,,.r,rrT1oN.o ANOTHER sUIT-DA'lEL I'M
THE DEFENDANT. .,;u.

THE DEFENDANT .,;,.
:, the Supreme Court, Chambers ho'li" ~
= aore yesterday, but another suit was Cum -.
r. rcot CONFLICT The following Is the Brew and the
IN mn, FrrIe T. 4.iwav Company aet D""i'
- Rlilrag steamboat COMPANY .ir complains and
The Eide Railway Company l'"iD''-
A s,f That the plaintiff eoPorisopp Principal object
the laws a. thiSStatc, and ~ Railway from New
xct" ID frl aud Buffalo, VII W IN contracts here
Sesopd That a. the tlne G sst Tie defendant Drew
H. ector df this p.aintin ~ ,Sssion Of an influ-
va - - 80. -. eve Committee - loSse - over fbe
Der OF MS - .Ion mat OF any otheI person O' Wv
plaintiff irs he plaintif is informed, and believes
n"Hi ~ IN plaintiff was l0ssesSed .. ~ w., 1l.in-
80 I'M, axe Erie when car w ~ I, U,r-i-i, and Buf
heafgt 10 aud nom It's stations ~, ~ nroGtable
IN OsI tT br.fness ~ said boats was very IN si
I"; s bc plaintiff Is informed ana ne { t 70 de-
goldH i njsintf induced the Directors OF Wy bt
no "e 10 the defendanS, the Eie liai%S si % which
i.ss tbar their value, and 90 enter Aio Con
tract with the ssid other deeb The paintff agreed TO
~ 10 The s.,d Coupapy from 5000 20 $500 ,Cftbs ~
Anm ~, t. 81, 49, oJ boats were sold as Aforesaid
I'D r said contract entered INTO ana tne inUeI , p
dfr,gtthe plaintiff induced the Directors
II he planf 10 make new e9,s y, 40 po0 each per
;orlncr one for the use or even pJi'I a. s ~ -
,l,n Tor service during eisnt iNoltlS' s,o ., 7 coz,
Siyfh. That tire FIRST O! J, . a,i he yi.ir. #
tract WI, I'm beafs from the defendant. the Elle Raul
go ,,,i,alt COMPANY giving therefor the piahsL
en-: That The si Drew has always been and stl
f-,enf oil the Erie Railway Steamboat company,
81 Is principal stockhoder aud the oisanization OF thal
sCrntv was had by nW mainly, win vic" 70 covering
g., b II frauds In rEe matters aforesaid.
"a: Tha The whole object OF defendants in making
r. ncut aforesaid, except the termination OF
tb cCfe was 20 make the plaintiff surrender TO them
Sc ggd profitable part NJ it, business and 70 Obtain
srge am0t OF money from the plaintiff without consl0
E.,t: Tt as the plaintiff is informed and believes the
pr,d realized by tile defendants from running the sald
hoafs pay all expenses and including the notes
ofnreiiI exceed 100000. all OF which might and wGLid
have COME ID the plaintiff but for the execution OF the
fraudulent schemes aforesaid.
TeUft That the said notes negotiable IN FORM ll
the nj I'm; is informed aud believes that the defendant
intends f0sp1se OF them 20 other per,uue who may par
rl4-o tn,u good faith and Ter value 70 the great PIE
JUDGE OF tLe PaiuuE
Wherefore the plaintiff demands Judgment:
FIRST That the defendants account fuf All the pohJ
earned bv them or either Of them frcu steamboats,
running Tor or incOnuection with the plaintiffs railway
SecoHd: That the defendants be euJolned from pdgE
with any OF the said notes mentioned IL tie complaint
Tlird That the said notes be delivered mp and can.
celed.
FOURTH That the defendant Daniel Drew. Fay to the
plaintiff 81 .0Oo GO damages.
F4ELD q SuEAENAS, Plaintiffs Attorneys