The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-05-01

ants should be regarded Is applying equally to their
JAMES JAMES FISK, yR., ArrBARs IN couRr AND rs AD-
MITTED TO BAIL.
Mr. Porter asked the permission Of the court that
the proceedings should be interrupted until Mr. Fisk
into court, which request was assented to. ''''''
Mr. Fisk appeared In few minutes and made his
rentrse with great composure before the court
at $1,000 under the above stipulation.
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES RESUMED.
o. B. Ashley was then called q witness for the
prosecution; and being sworn testified that he was
stockbrOker; was applied to on the evening Of the
7th Of March last by MI. Groesbeck to go with him
on matter OF business; went with him to the
house OF Mr.. Field, Jr., on Twentynrst street; saw
IN the front room Mr. Drew, Jay Gould, the younger
and spoke to Mr.. Drew and then Mr. Groesbeck said,
INT Drew you want to DO some business with Mr.
you s5,O0O,OO0 OF the convertible bonds of the
Erie Railway Company at u per cent and viii guar
sntee you against any loss i4the transaction' told
day, l think, about 1919 on the market; Mr. Drew
declined to make 1t at that price and told him
Field was in the room at that time bill Of sale was
then given me by Mr. Drew, containing the order on
Groesbecs Co. for the bonds, stating the price and
duce the bill of sale; told Mr.. Drew supposed it
then, and he said 1t would do on Monday morn
| Ing; was then asked to sign an aflida-
Witch w slated that Fea osa and maze porCa
uDon the Erie Railway Company for the stock mad
been refused; declined to sign that statement and
said had not made any demand; Mr. GrOesbeck or
Mr. Field said '.we, you can make the demand
now; here is Mr.. Drew the treasurer Of the company
ana MI: Go1id one OF the Executive Committee and
for those bonds; they both refused to give the
stock; then went into the other room and signed
the affidavit; there was a person there whom sup
posed to be notary; this took place about eleven
O'Clock at night-lMr Morgan was here requested to
rise in court, but witness did not recognize him
son was stated TO me why was desired to make
that atldayt could not say whether It was prepared
think the afiidavt stated that | was the owner or
stated how to pay the remainder of the money
for the bonds but understood that Mr.. Drew was
transaction was to have it; il there was loss Mr.
Drew was to bear 1t; neither the bonds the stock
were there at that time that know of Mr..
Groesbeck said he had the bonds and would deliver
them to me; nothing was said about any injunction
or mandamus there; left the house about halfpast
eleven O'Clock with Mr. Drew and Mr. GrOesbeck; on
Monday morning went to my office and then to Mr.
GrOesbeck's office; Mr.. Groesbeck said, "Mr. Drew
mas instructed a me- to lend you the whole OF this
him preferred that; he then me the bonds and
examined them and handed them back to him and
signed the note
EXAMINATION OF NIB. orIs--REoALLED.
Mr.. Otis, secretary OF the Erie Railway Company,
bonds of the Erie Railway Company Nos iii to 100,
inclusive; witness brought them from the vaults OF
the c0mpany,s 0i1lce; they came into his possession
on the llth OF March; witness found them lying on
his desk; did not know who lett them there.
MI. Field objected to the examination of this wit
ness going on until he had had an opportunity Of
The court directed Mr.. Clark to proceed with the
examination and witness stated In reply to a ques-
ton that he did not know at what hour of the day
the bonds had been left on his desk.
MR.. ASHLEY RECALLED.
Mr.. Ashley was then recalled, and identified the
bonds numbered as above stated; there were ten Of
them Tor 100000 each, bearing date March 1868,
and drawing interest at seven per cent from that
date witness did not know OF any arrangement bay-
ing been made for the payment OF the interest the
$5o90ooo; the interest on the bonds from February
| to the 9th OF March would be about 100000; de-
manded common stock of the Erie Railway Com
pany; did no. know exactly how common Erie stock
was ssned dd not expect to receive the stock when
Question by Mr.. Clark-Then it was sham de-
mand sir9 Objected to by Mr.. Field and question
Q, Did You believe the stock was therep Mr.. Field
again objected and claimed that Of no sort OF
consequence whether Mr.. Drew gave witness the
whole Of the stock or not; II he chose 80 to do it
was no ones business. The idea of sham sale was
foreign to the case and whether witness thought the
stock there when he demanded it was of no sort
OF consequence.
Mr.. Clark said this interview ana transaction in
this stock was "a part OF the continuance by means
OF which this extraordinary violation OF your Honors
| INDUCTION was effected"
Mr. Field thought If the counsel would omit the
words "extraOrdinary violation" OF an Injunction
which he had used about five hundred times during
the progress Of this suit he would Obge all parties
very greatly.
The objection was overruled, and the witness re-
piled that he had reason to believe either that
the stock was or was not there.
Q. Did you want stock that had been issued in the
ordinary manner or stock that had been made up at
the momentY Mr.. Field objected, and said this was
an idle question
Mr.. Clark thought that whether this was an idle
question or not, IL was not an idle hour that had
been spent at that house on that night.
Considerable discussion was INDUCED in on this
question and Mr. Field said he did not know whether
counsel on the other side was to be permitted to
make q harrange upon every point raised. He would
like to know whether there was any method Of stop:
Mr.. Clark thought II there was any way Of doing so
he would like to apply the bride. II his honor had
on the other side, the 'harangue as he termed it.
would not have taken place. (l.aughter)
MI; Tleda ~, sir rise again; for mean just
right to close the discussion when ..object. - and
shall avail myself Of my privilege. What right has
and go into an offensive and impairment discusson
OF the question. Now, when sit down again sup
pose he VIII be up again to talk-laughter)-and
shall rise again II he docs, 80 l give him notice.
(I.aughter)
Mr.. Clark have said all 1 wanted to say.
Witness replied In answer to the question, that he
could not say that he had any definite expectation
on the subject. II Mr. Drew had said he conId not
have given the stock then but would civ il To him
lwitnessl on Monday morning 1t would have been
EXAMINATION OF THOMAS j. NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
Thomas j. Shearman, attorney In the Beden suik
was recalled and examined, but the only new point
Ol interest," bieahcu Ion MS testimony was that his
register contained no record whatever OF any pro.
ceeding by mandarnus, before Judge Gilbert To com
pei the Erie Railway Company to Issue stock.
Mr.. Ashley was recalled and examined mt great
length In reference to the handwriting OF the agree
rnent for the purchase and sale OF the $4,000 600
worth OF bonds; did not know whether his name
was inserted at the house after he went there or
before he went therc the agreement (produced was
otherwise, rs he received It; stamps had been
taken or IL had been stamped; never paid The
note; supposed Mr. Groesbeck gave the bonds to Mr.
Drew; witness left them with Mr.. Groesbeck as Sc
afrrffy fnP nnf hnVfx
the bonds or convert them whenever it was IN his
(witnessD interest. provided he realized the amount
OF the note; had asked Mr. Drew for an accounting
of the transaction, and Mr. Drew had promised 10
account, but had not done so as yet.
Mr.. Field cross-examned the Witness and asked
him u Mr.. Drew was tue owner Of the bonds when
he sold them. collected toy
q. Who was the owner Of the bonds when they
were sold to your A. thought they were Mr.
Drew's sir objection by Mr.. Clark to anestion
and to the as rrcsponsive, and another long.
winded discusson).