New-York tribune., 1868-06-25

nard) The Directors who hadup to this time appeared
and Thompson leaving Mr. Eldrdge; President OF the
Company, Mr. Drew, Mr. FISH ana MI & %oG t%ov az All
not appear and answer he would demand OF them should
they ever within his jurisdiction sc Ser ttogSeV
The counsel now engaged IA the case "Gn fnde of t3e
Gen. Champlan, Henry f. Davies, ihe Junge VI vn ,o
Court Of APpsa ang aTe for ihe sniDew party
and on the OIhpr side, MeSsrs James L. Iia5 NJ
PerIepont NJ Potter, Dndley fiGii Gniio refreS was
appointed TO take testimony touching the alleged CON
referee to take such proofs should be produced by
either party. On the 7th OF April ths eAniatio ~ " & @
matter was commenced before Mr. ISkl, anu war cun @
tiuued ON the sh. On the 9th, at the ouprtlhe SoI
General Term came up the lnatter OI an ~
against Mr. JAY Gould, OF the Directors Ol tlo Oon
pany who had now petiioned for the Issuance 0I VIII
habeas corpus from the Court OF common n I
of April Mr. George A. Osgood had, IN the mean tlme'
been appointed receiver oi the properly OF e
in Albany, while on his way To- western Stite, hu
held await the action of the supreme NouiI @ I iTr
alleged contempt. He brought 10 New-nork
and taken before Judge Barrett OF the common common
Pleas, who. on the ad o, eaaIIrd aIgi' that nn lad
faith was intended by Mr. Could During all tis time,
bancroft Davis "A director of the Company, were conH-
ued before Mr. Haskn, the referee but OWING 10 'nS ' ~
that one Of the witnesses (Mr Bede, partner VI nlI.
Fisk In the brokerage husinrs) refused TO answer ce @
inteTrOgatOres put 10 him by counsel Tor inc ahuDIcW
PARTY Judge Barnard ordered the proceeding 10 pe COR
tnucd before him. Here too tine witness leluseu p hl
swcr and was committed on six separate cohtcn,po
charges during day session Of the reference Ou
to ed Of April there were the supreme Court Cham
hers calendar ten motions growing out OF the Ere hug
tio-thrce 10 dissolve junctiOs three 10 Yacate tue
order oupoutug receiver, two vacatc stays OF pro-
cceding- and two others of dlncfeht chaiactcr hi
application was on this day also made before Judge
NrCmu for a writ of habcas corpus bring up william
Icdcu who was committed for contempt by Judge Bar
uard in xix distinct issues but lie refused TO grant inc
VIII judge Noah Davies Of the Supreme Court had pre-
NiOusly ou the 18th, issued order staying All pOcecu
mgs n = reference growing ont OF this litigation, before
A Rcdfed esd until The further order OF the Court,
and the determination Of the Issues theh pending Deioo
on the 25th Of April the Erie cxes" broke camp at
Fort Taylor" IN Jersey city, and returned 70 New YORK
with all the property oi tue cohayi Word hani.s pin %
conveyed them. II S SAID that they were forgiven tue
contempt" under which they had rested Tor more thl
~ month, ANA that the opposite, or atl-DcW pr'y' was
willing To arrange for an anirabe settlement of existing
differences. The 3oth of April was another hcd-day IN
this legal war In the supreme Court m9tloia "cIr %
dissolve the uJuhcous Issued ~ lht suits OF s''I
against the Erie Railway Company Bloodgood against
the same, ana The People against we SIe; lncr @ L,u
tiOns brought at the same time that the contempt
proceedings going on before Judge Barnard ihd Slr
lasklns. In the latter the hIll ot hi Jay 1oHu Wa c
duccd from $4,000 tO $1,000, ana that Of Mr. ElddSr
thc same cure ON the 5th day May the motion 10
dissolve uimctlOns issued M the sullS or the ftopc
against the Eric Railway Company ot Schtl against me
same and Blood good against the same, argued at
special term Of the Supreme Court before Judge Suthcr
Land, and argument was continued on me ON hh oi'
The General Term Of the Court coming ON, the defend
moved before it for an appeal thereto of the Iucs
porary Injunction removing Mr.. Drew was sustained at
The same term, having been previously appealed thereto
SIR OCOuOr, for the plaintiffs al n Subsequent Special
Tcfm argued against diSSulyug the Junctions ana on
The i2tb al Nav Mr IinrrilI OF couus, for the Drew
party argued in favor 90 yacatiug the injunction orders
obtained ~ the suits Of schc Boodgood ana the People
against the Erie Company The arguments pro ana cPn
SUI ihcrlaud. ou the 22d Of May. rendered his de-
inciions in the suits argued before himin The suit Of
The People igt. The Eric Company absolutely win co,t,
and n the eases OF SchclI ana BOOdgOOd, with mOd
cation far TO permit tine directors Of the Company
10 hold meetings. even though Frank Work be excluded;
and with the further modification that the clause OF Inc
Injunction fpbddug Board Of Directors from max
Ing % contract with any railroad company etc. nc
changed 10 issuing or permitting to be Issued s0 ny
Uothtcatcd disposed Of any bonds Of the Boston,
Hartford and Erie Railway Company having any gura,
from parting with and delivering allowing to e de
hycrcd, 10 any person or corporation any sch 3o.us'
which are or may come under the 9ohr" Oh t ucl'l,
dnu or amy either of thcm aud also from doing or
suffering DE done, any act whatever on the part OF the
Erie Railway Company, or s Directors or officers OF any
them. iu performance or toward the performance or
the agreement the Erie Railway Company "a indorse
guarantee r bonds or the interest cItOI OF lu per
formauCo Of the agreement oi me Efe Railway company
with the Michigan Southern aud Northern Indiana lill
road company, ISpc't lhe , "i , ,i,
railroad iu Ohio connecting or o connect thc AIlah
tie aud Great Western Railway with the city ot New
York" TIE injunction orders thus modified, were con
tinurd. ,.
fined before Judge Barnard. On May the prosecution
IN these closed and the defense wa, ordered to be
taken. by niiayit, out Of court ON Inc l2lh ot MAY
several adayits were handed n. and Mr. Eldrdgc not
being present attachment wa. Issued against NM,
jourucd The matter on the 10TH called mp again
and adjourned to the 26h, when those motions which
Identical n principle with the motions argued he
fore and decided 6y Judge sutherland decided in
conformity with that decision for the purpose having
them come up o appeal before thr General Term in June
The other matters put over 10 the third Tuesday In
June. Since then. ~ would appear that the questions IN
litigation have been mncaby adjusted between the con
esants. ON the 18th OF tins mouth IN appeal from the
injunction orders came UP before Justices Barnard,
Sutherland aud CarOZl at the General Term Ot the Su
prcme COut the being those The Scheand
BOOdgOOd Hgt the Erie Co. when Mr. Field for the de
PENDANTS, asked leave 10 have dsCOntnuaucc entered.
for the reason that the matters Of litigation had been sub
santiiy settled. Thi, was opposed by Mr. OCOnor,
the ground that II they were merely discontinued the ap
peal might be brought mp again al any time. The Conrt
then ordered all the bee affirmed by default sub
cquently attempt made by motion before Judge
Iugraham To yHcate order OF reference previously
granted 10 take Mr. Drcw's testimony as TO the contempt
proceedings. but II denied on the ground that his
examination made "A condition to avoid commitment.
Tuesday last Judge Barnard decided that Directors
Lane aud Diyen guilty, at most OF technical con
tempt and directed all the other dcicudantsGOud, FISK,
Thompson. Davis SkdmOrc, and Edrdgc-tO bc present
Tuesday next when he would announce his decision
lu their cases formally. and would hear counsel the
question OF punishmcuts. Thus stands the litigation;
aud after Tuesday next II Is probable we shall hear no
IN the " Great Erie War