New-York tribune., 1868-02-22
THE eMAT ERIE LITIGATION
o,.o .pcrvrNr AND LITTLE RrsuLr.

tovG ARGUMENT AND LITTLE RESULT.
c,,nre,oe Conrt- Chambers. Before Jr ,dce
pr,ara Yesterday was the return day Of ~ order to
hov cause granted on the petition OF the t,orney Gen.
go, tor tbe removal Of Daniel Drew nri.hed in last
Thursday's TRIBUNE and both rt,ss we're present by
counsel Mr. Drew being also reeent personally On the
motion being called mp smith, counsel for MI Drew,
the respondent and stated that before going into ne
merits OF the matter they had some preliminary ooco
tons snere no statute now standing on tne
book which authorized such proceeding as the present
g6o code though II had excepted proceedings under
chapter OF Part III Of tie Revised Statutes he tb
not excepted ns ssoh eqoeedng was in the nature
of snit The Erie Railway was the most interestsdd
Marty in this proceeding which affected us direction snu M
n3 cement and decree I'm this proceeding without ls
nresence would be decree affecting lis interests
h stotnfe he brought on in proceeding but only IN
suit Nor had the Attorney General me rght 70 , co,
%snSs the %t6Ssy s9SsS GepsTa BAD tie @ to %
only in matters where the pubic was nteIeSod nd
the language was ambiguous It must be interpreted 10
refer 10 matters of public mteTest ana not e. TO Prva
stockhOlder aud director, or director ana ms 20 U0
directors The yericaton OF anS @ pennUn d heef Tsf
fatally defective II was not Yelhed even on oeiei I
by the Attorney General, ard the yerihealoa
by Mr.. Wark merely that he was o
Seon and @ believed the rest The might
be the fact that Mr. Drew was director & ana Her
charged Mr.. Drew oGenses On all these grounds
The Court at all Judge Barnard suggested to the eenII-
SCI that there was point as to an accounting beng
for the petitioner stated that there was nee % no S d
Of accounting but the statute required tnat Ino ue
fendant should when brought mp In this summary way,
give account Of his conduct IS egger me conpay
IN reference 70 the malfeaSances chafged 1Dls atei
6Iy TeGnrcd that when an action was commenced, il
should 6e carried according 10 s provisions IL had
the Court should conclude that it was proper
that an action should he commenced andEthat was one
ra}on must conform to the code. But this was pfo-
ceeding under special statute passed Ne summary
remedy In cases requiring summary acgn and ever
there was case requiring such sp.dnary action IL
the present. The ordinary remedy by action TOO
admitted that If this was suit the present proceeding
must be dismissed. Under the old Chgntcry practice
lie nsanCcd the cases partition aud other equity pro-
cecdngs II was not from the form OF the first paper
nature Of the relief sought. Any Judicial proceeding
which might result IN judgment or decree was snt
proceeding mistake ana the petition gave no luris-
dction. The statute directed that the matter should pro
ceed by bin petition, the might require Tie
ny S c"nld ony he obtained bv bringing m the
Company and "A formal decree I'm SUIT IN which they
were parties and which commenced regularly under
fhe code on this petition Mr. Drew had been suspended
from once. Was not this nal determination e. pdfe
Could such determination be bad without the person
deprived of his rights being heaTdt But here Ny Drew
had been condemned not oGly without being heard, but
on mere heasay. Mr. Work swOro 10 many OF the iaes
they might wen be those which an the world knew. that
Mr.. Work Director, that Mr. Drew was director
and Treasurer &C. while al the main facts were on near
saw Judge Barnard stated that before granting THIS order
he had The conclusion that there was clear
distinction between a sPcohl lIO''t'us u M 'V.o' ,i'
and that the Atorneyt}cDeral could commence elmer
corporal bn pro tddo part of the state, ana me
ATTORNEY. General In the of his yisitatOrl
power, had the right To ou-t an Oiicer who was dog
was 9onbfu Was the suliciccy OF the affidavit OF Mr..
Work petition. Mr. Fullerton called the attention
allowed when 10 should appear that director "ar Sultyl
willie the very next section provided for removal
discussion the Court decided 10 20 on. The facts
were stated 20 positively IN the petuoh that Mr'
Mr. Porter for tho respondent stil eoncnded tat INC
affidavit was insuicen that the only thing sworn 10 vas
that Mr. Work ana Mr. drew directors and that hr.
Work beiered that Mr.. Drew bad hen guilty of breach
ciitV of breach OF trust c does rot wen disclose tho
names of the nfOrmants Ha1 not The Attorney "cn,
the could continue the niuneuon must be it-f
he accT-e Go4ld lse dG5n & - y S@rp S9"P'y G rs %
moved parie Ia such mamu,rf II would ne terlbe
nnovai ON g. say that hei' "L nci,t } ~
their authority. Judge Barnard fplciaed hs lm.
nat Inn Wow of tie crayIfy of tho decision would ask
Judge barnard help them to have thoir appeal heard
Nc. Court only meets TO render decisions
NJ. TieldYes but the Court win probably be willing
M FWilc1tou-Nye want an answer from AR. Drew. He
is seeking 10 obtain by 40 answer To in the benehts
NJ Fleid-Cientemen shall have full II they
viii put their charges ia sne slfpc 'hat sue one MI En
hcU but N ~ 10 ne hfru'l ih' hiHl
that man he called 10 answer because another
man believes he has done wrong.
Mr. RdDdfiOft Is a very peculiar request that the de-
feDdau makes that the matter shall 20 Ia the General
Term before denied the charges made against
HIM The Attorney General has thought THIS matter une
calling for the immediate ana encctNe ACTON OF TIE
Court and the magnitude Of the Interests ana the gravity
of thc charges rendered II eminenty for such
action OF the courts. The now stands without
answer and therefore tcchIcay confessed as 10 tho
facts II they stand in that position the argu-
uent could heard at once but there wHs nothing now
10 go the General Term WITH.
Judge BGrNurd-Of course 10 cannot he heard by inc
General Tenn Monday without the consent on your
part 49,
gagemens for Monday aud Tuesday. But what We want
IS an answer TO our charge. -
Mr. Iieid-We cannot be expected to answer peuton
within fortyeigh hours which Lac taken the petitioners
three months 90 get up.
Iudge BdfHdrd-As the General 1crm cannot hear this
motion Monday shall deny the motion To adjourn ior
that purpose
Mr. Fieid-rhen not ready TO proceed today aud
ask that It stand over.
NJ JHfl6rOH-Ilt is no reason even Tor MI fltId 10
state. Why IL he not ready
dge Barhayd-Is II fsr the purpose OF putting In an
answerf
M Ti,d-For the purpose Of taking SUCH proceedings
as MIR. Drew may be advised
The matter then put over UT "wednesday next ~
II O'Clock a. Nj. smith, MI. Field and Mr. Porter, for
defendant; Mr.. NandcrpOel. M RdpallO ami Nh Fuller
'VH ioi p4'iH'' ,--A
TIE CELEBRATION or WASulNGTONs BIRTH
DAY.
The Joint Special Special Committee of the
Common Council appointed 10 make The Necessary ar
rangements fortho celebration Of Washugon's birthday