The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-03-19

ommenced March Q, ana eli the proceedings supple
,entary thereto, and asked the court whether "a
hese actions each Of which had some applicano to
he other, were stated when the INJUNCTION
vas applied for All the counsel WHO were
Il me rights Of the stockholders designed
naky an application er p<re for the dissolution q
sns s e
iistant when the GOULD be fAlrly decided upon
argument on it, inertia And now, after waiting a.
The in attendance without aindavits or papers
asking for pOstpoEement, and that the inuncIlon
might be showed TO stand. Tns Gomp fenin sus
division was reached In II there couid hoe oe
found the slightest ground for the granting OF
succeeding sub division further than that set forth
In the yenth which alleges the combination ana con-
spsscy y,oa Ana istO n and Belief Why did not the
PARTIES who gave this information to the plaintn
make the afidavits themselves, or why did not the
strengthen his casei The two brief afndavits that
were presented were w0rBe than the complaint
that combination mas been entered into for the pur
pose OF specializing In stocks" Did Mr.. Belden
mean that Mr.. Drew and his own partner,
Fisk, had been entering into combination Tor
might I'LL their short sales OF Eries He (Mr Clark
learned Judge, who mad thus been maiigned In q
menner that OF itself proved to be one Of the most
disgraceful developments OF this whole proceeding
That justice was represented by Mr.. Shafer. But
another Of these allegations was that he "had been
In the habit Of going to the Offices Of certain bro
kers." What brokers were thcyf Were they the
brokers who had the evidence upon which this in
junction was granted, ana who had Ia their pos
session twenty-five hundred shares Of stock for
which there was no basisY Who were these bro
kers? 1t was o sad commentary on the times when
counsel dared to go before Q court to make such
grave charges, upon such evidence, against judge
upon the bench.
After some further discussion on the motion to
postpone MIR. Sherman framed an affidavit in court
In NH ha or h0 had han inf Inv
Mr. Belden that Mr. Belden had credible Information
Of the matters upon which the charge OF conspiracy
was based, &c. and that deponent believed that with
reasonable time evidence could be procured to sus-
tain them, &c.
The court decided that this was insufficient and
after further desultOry argument Judge Gilbert
said that the only question now on the adjournment
was to the absence Of PLAINTIFFS associate counsel
postp0nement Of the motion. The parties had taken
the responsibility OF bringing these charges not only
gentlemen Of Inc highest Character in the Community
alleging conspiracy OF the most extraordinary
nature and perversion OF the course Of justice well
as charging them with using the process Of the courts
to further speculations In the stock The gentlemen
who make these charges should be prepared to sub
consciences but that Of the public, and he Judge
GilberD would not permit charge OF that kind to
be supported upon bare suspicion or allegation that
evidence "may'' be procured, and he would be very
reluctant to afford parties any indulgence in such
practice; for they ought to be prepared, upon the
evidence in which the charge was made, to salts
fy the court as to the truth Of the charge thus
made. The application for this order was made to
him the COURT when he was sick and ne underworld
had shown to exist When the bill was read to him he
supposed that 1t contained aftirmattvey positive
allegations upon the subject, and he saw now from
reading 1t that 1t would possibly bear that con-
structiOn. He overruled the motion to postpone and
the parties making those charges mus. sustain them
by which they had not been afforded an OPP
pOrtunity for procuring evidence which they say
it was an outrage upon the administration OF
justice. He thought 1t was time, when charges OF
Of this kind were made by men In high commercial
positions under oath, that they believed parties Of
distinction were engaged In combinations and using
the process OF the courtsfor speculation In Stocks that
an opportunity should be afforded them to substan-
tiate the charges thus made. He would also say
that an application was made to him o day or two
poning this case He then told Mr. Burrill he would
not postpone It, and assigned substantially the same
reasons that he had done now. The motion to post
pone was peremptorily denied.
Mr.. Clark, In opening the motion on the order to
show cause, then proceeded to read the following
AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD sCHELL.
SUPREME CouET ... be'den U.s. Cornelius
city ana County Of Neeo York...Richard schell,
one dn ne nn sav Sa tns Seag du
the tenth subdivision Of the complaint In this action
are utterly false 50 lar as they relate to this depo-
they relate to the other defendants In said subdi-
vision named and that this deponent never entered
INTO any such combination as Is herein charged
And deponent further says that he is and had been
for several months prior TO the commencement OF
to- stakeholder Of the Erie Railway Company; that
he became satisfied that the directors OF said COM
pany who were most active In its MANAGEMENT were
using their powers as such directors to advance their
personal interests Mt the expense Of the interests Of
the stockholders Of said and that several OF
pany, and thus their individual interests were In
direct hostility to those Of the stockholders,
large unauthorized issues Of the stock OF said COM
pany, but that they contemplated making further
Unauthorized issues Of such stock, notwithstanding
the Injunction which had been granted restraining
such issue.
And this deponent further says that under these
rights as q stakeholder Of said company against the
reckless and INSCRIPTIONS acts OF the directors
wnS w he managing the con Of said
9th OF March, 1868, against the Erie Railway
Company and some of its directors in behalf Of him
self and other stockholders OF said company copy OF
the complaint In which action Is annexed to the
AFFIDAVIT Of A. O. Brown, prepared to be read on this
And deponent says that after the commencement
OF said action he learned that large amount Of
stock OF said company had been surreptitiously
injunction granted at the suit Of the Attorney General
aforesaid and that the rms Of Fisk Beden Co..
instrumental in the issue and sale OF
SAID ss sSss and that the said firm o.
thereof, and this deponent thereupon took the pro-
ceedings for the appointment Of a receiver which
are mentioned in said affdavit Of A. O. Brown, and
deponent says that the action In which such proceed
ings taken was commenced before the service Of
this order OF injunction In this matter.
And deponent says that VIM. Belden, the plaintiff
in this action, IL one Of the firm Of Fisk Beden Co.,
and that James Fisk Jr., another member thereof Is
one Of the directors Of the Erie Railway Company,
and deponent believes and, therefore, charges that
this action was commenced and the order OF inunc-
tion granted herein was obtained for the fraudulent
purpose Of anording pretext for the viola
ton Of said Injunction granted at the suit OF
the Attorney General, and for the purpose
OF preventing or embarrassing anticipated
proceedings on the part Of stockholders and others
for the protection OF the funds realized from the sale
OF said unauthorized issue Of stock and thus that
said order Of Injunction In this action was OBJ
tanned on false allegations and by the suppression
Of material facts, whereby the Justice who grant
ed the same was deceived and mised.
And deponent further says that In all his acts with
reference TO the litigation herein referred TO he has
acted In good faith and with the sole object Of pro-
tectlng the rights and interests OF himself and other
stockholders OF said company whom he represents in
said litigation against the fraudulent and unlawful
acts and proceedings Of certain Of the directors Of said
Erie Railway Company, and that he believes that any
order Of Injunction which may restrain him or any