The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-05-10
SUPREME CcU3I-spfC'AL TENN.
The Erie LitigntfOn-Ihe Scircli Injnnc'icn-
MIR. Charles O'COnOr's Defence Of Judge
Barnard.


Barnard.
Before Judge Sutherland.
Richard Scheu u.s. the Erie Rdltray Company ct
al; People rs. DreU; Work rs. .dne.-The argument
OF Mr.. Chas. O'ConOr on the motion TO dissolve the
Injunction granted in the suit OF Richard Schell,
joining the Erie Railway Company from issuing
Stock or converting bonds into stock AMI restraining
the board OF directors from holding meetings or
transacting any business as snch board, was con-
cuded yesterday In the course OF his argument
referring to the action OF Judge Barnard throughout
the whole litigation, Mr. O'C0nOr said:--Ne had no
apprehension that the case would not be fully con-
sdercd; but we did then think from the variety Of
operations that mad taken place In this case--frOm
the multitude OF suits that mad been brougnt-Crcss
suits IN every dire tion-from the running hther
catch Judge there, in order TO try In some way to
have their case decided without being heard or duly
considered, and taking into view all tina. has been
said abroad and published In the newspapers and
elsewhere throwing odiuni and repr0ach upon one
OF the judges in thus district we were In some degree
apprehensive that II was among the things possible
that those studOus efforts TO cast Odium and dis
credit, as IL were upon all connecieI with our side
OF this case-and oil course, q Judge who decides
point in our favor becomes far, in degree, con-
nected with side since he gives his vote and judy
ment on our sidc-we felt apprehensive that
without some degree Of influence with
the mind OF any judge that we came
before, and therefore we were most exceedingly
anxious that our whole merits should get fully spread
before him. and that his mind light he disabused Of
these mpeachments that have been cast upon certain
Now the effort in that respect has been very
laborious and mt this stage OF the invite your
Honor for moment to look at the case, AZ It is now
presented before you, you have patiently heard II
with all its facts and with all Its legal features and
! ask you whether there Ia any circumstance con-
nected with II that Ia calculated to bring to the nd
the slightest ground 70 suspect that the judge
who allowed this Injunction, on these facts,
was actnated by anything else than sound
and lust inference from the facts and circumstances
placed before him. II is true that you may look Mt
man and not Ike his face You may look at his man
ners and not ike them. You may look at his assoc
ates and You may not like them You may learn that
he goes fishing, and If you are not In the habit OF
fishing you may say he Is q trinlng fellow ami 40
not give attention to his lawful business All these
th ngs may be done, but they are UNJUST they arc
matters which give rise to natural emotions In the
mind and we are bound. ali Of us, and am very
tain our judges in general do try to guard against
them a. much AZ possible. While, az we have shown
in this case the merits were with that course
of wrong most striking and marked has been pursued
by the parties whom we seek to enjon, when we
show ali these things clearly, and show that the in
functions were rightly granted, maniiesty granted in
right view OF the law and right view OF the facts,
I apprehend that the Judge stands vindIcated We
have no right TO Judge men by their acts and Oings.
Human motive Is seen only by the great all.seeng
eve Men Judge OF each other, but they have no
motives are exhibited by the acts OF men, ami while
the case was 50 clear and plainly right, respect
fully maintain the act OF allowing these njuncuons
was and 30 fully supported think we may claim an
acquittal Of the Judge, who has been traduced and
has been thus vilined, who has been prosecuted,
who has been enjoined. think we may claim that
In this ordeal In this trial. whatever may be his fault
In the estimation OF his enemies or know OF nonc),
he comes forth perfectly indicated aud sustained.
Mr. Burrill then opened the argument in reply and
reviewed very closely the right OF judicial officers 10
enoin q corporation ftOn the exercise 0f lts cOrp0-
rate sa Re c S ,s
the Erie Railway It's tracks, rails, running Stock &C.
lie claimed that that report demonstrated in unmis-
taxable language the necessity for the issue by the
corporation Of this very stock which they had con-
templated issuing for the purposes OF repairs,
structon and Improvement. And II stronger proof
of this necessity was needed, 1t abundantly fur
nished 10y the terrible railroad accident which had 30
recently and subsequent to report and the grant
ing OF the Injunction shocked the community.
Recapituating also from the commencement Of the
litigation, from the fling OF the first complaint THAT
OF Work w. the Erie Railway Company on the 18th
of February, down TO the subsequent steps taken;
he argued that inasmuch a. Frank Work had him.
self long been codrector with Drew II was some
what singular that upon Drew being excluded from
the Board Of Directors BY the election Of 1867 Work
and bis asspcistea should have secured the resana-