The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-15

those In BROOKLYN al twelve H.
Notions in the United states courts in Brooklyn
will be heard on Fridays instead OF on Saturdays
SAML. BLATCHFORD
CHAS. L. BENEDICT.
SUPREME CuuaT-CaAMBeSs
The Eric LitiGaiion-The Argument Re-
sumed-A Female Stakeholder in the
Melee.
m Before Judge Cardozo
Belmont ct al. cs. The Erie Rdltcdv Company
ct al. Mcintosh cs The Erie Raflacay Company,
belmont ct aL-At half,past one O'Clock yesterday
the argument on all the Erie motions now pending
resumed before this court the usual large array
Of counsel being present.
Mr.. Eaton. on behalf the plaintiff Belmont, rose,
and addressing the Court said that perhaps II would
be proper for him to bring to the attention Of this
Court the fact that soon after the commencement Of
this suit an order was made, on the petition OF Mrs.
Teresa Robinson, stakeholder OF the Erie Railway
Company, that she should be admitted as CO.
plaintiff. The order directed that she should be ad-
United and that she should have the benefit of this
suit a. q stOckholder and plainti. That order had
been served on counse! and was in due FORM
made that she had not had notice.
Mr.. Eaton replied that there was not.
Mr.. Field asked If she appeared now in the case,
Mr.. Eaton replied that she did, so far as his state
ment was concerned.
was then exhibited TO Mr.. Field.
Mr.. Emott next addressed the Court, and said that
since Inc aye 6 On last az saturday nad been
part OF those who were resisting this motion for
rehearing, probably because the view he would take
was preliminary view, and would be mainly con-
fined the question whether the rehearing was the
proper remedy for relief for those parties. and II
they had reason to complain OF the action Of the
Judge who made the orders on which the rehearing
was asked. The argument OF the learned counsel who
6 this cn nse on tine 9nsg i have
fully appearing IN the facts OF this case. By his own
confession 1t was largely in defect made by parties
outside OF the case, and he arrngned parties not in
volved IN this proceeding further than their acts
might have had reference to some OF these parties
and who were absent. The learned counsel could
not have supposed that any one side would
undertake to defend Mr.. Drew or Mr.. work. Those
gentlemen had no friends in this controversy while,
SO far ~ Mr.. vanderbilt was concerned he had
friends Counsel had addressed that argument 10 t,e
Court simply to hold that because Mr.. Drew and Mr..
Work on one side and Mr.. Vanderbilt on the other
had been engaged Ia the transaction II raudu-
lent and oppressive 10 the stockholders OF the com
pany and his affidavit was not to be believed IL did
not, however. fall TO him Mr. Emott to discuss this
question In opening the argument but did To refer
To it briefly. There had been good deal said by
counsel on the other side IN reference TO the ac-
ton Of the Judge who granted the order.
What was implied and not what was said, however,
was necessary part or the proceedings initiated by
friends Of the other side. Neither did 1t fall to
him tMr. Emott), he thought to undertake the de-
fence OF Judge sutherland here II the acts aud
orders OF Judge were to be assaIed, that, he
derstOod II, was matter always heard before an
II the motives and OBJECTS Of judge were TO be at
tackled he had also heard and understood that that
was 10 be done In place other than court SO far
counsel had referred To the purposes Of this suit
10y MIR. Belmont IL was brought on the behalf OF ANA
| with the willingness OF a large number OF plaintiffs,
and that the result OF its prosecution might he
| beneficial TO all the parties besides himself.
| II he had good case and complained he
had the right to prosecute Il In a court Of
| equity, and II he had right to the relief
he demanded, or any part Of it, t was no answer TO
Mr. Belmont that he had been encouraged or assisted
had bad bad
bad purposes TO maintain. The plaintiff must stand
| or fall upon his own case. He the speakerl was
ton that IL his Honor was convinced that this suit
| OF Mr. Bemonrs however fair In ITSELF were prose
cuted TO assist or In any way IN the interest OF Mr.
schell or ANYBODY else, that there the must be
| at an end Not knowing OF any sucn proposition IN
law, he must, therefore, demur to that statement at
! the outset. The object OF the suit was simply the
appointment OF a receiver, and the object OF that
\ recclverShip according to the gentleman the
other side, was simply TO depress the market value
OF the stock. Now, If anything Vas likely to depress
| the stock would anything be so Likely to do 1t as
these enormous over issues Of stock by the defend
ants themselvesf Mr.. Belmont was interested TO the
amount OF 100000 In the stock OF this company and
IL difficult TO suppose that he would be disposed
.odepr,ss tas value 81 ms vwh prope, lnes n
| the exception or MIR Belmont and they could not
claim thai he would lend himself TO the operations
parties opposed to the best interests OF the COM
| pany when he owned sucn respectable interest As
| 100000 In 1t. That amount seemed to him tMr
| Emotp and others from the rural districts
| as quite large interest aud well worth
| defending and looking after, although 10
some OF these men, accustomed to handling millions,
II might not seem very Important Besides the re-
ceivcr was not the only prayer OF this complaint.
The complaint aimed directly at OF transac-
lions the root OF which lay In tue question whether
there Is the power IN this Board OF Directors TO
stock IN excess OF the amount TO which their capital
Il limited by any authority whatever. n that power
did not exist then they were committing frauds and
wrongs, which the stockholders had the right ~ re-
strain and redress. hut IL was against all these
wrongs aud transactions that this bill was
aimed. lie proposed, however, to connne
himself TO the question Of the proprlety and
power OF such proceedings az this. In indicating
The order IN which this argument should be heard
his Honor directed that the whole case should be
heard together; but IL had been intimatcd aud un.
derstood by counsel for Mr. Belmont that the rules
Of the court aud the rules OF law forbade such pro.
ceeding and his Honor, with his usual fransness,
said that that argument should be considered and
that the parties advancing 1t should have all the
benefit OF such deiiberation. The point was that an
order the rehearing. On the 10th OF November the
order to show cause was granted and with II the
were served on the i7th and made returnabls
on the sd. Ihey were granted on the bin
OF complaint in this case, to which his Honors at
tention had been called, and would be called more
fully hereafter. IL had not yet appeared that the
oyerissues OF stock complained OF had been denied:
on the contrary, they had been justified aud the
only point was that they were done Inv means of
contrlvances to issue the convertible bonds and
that these bonds issued before the election oos
place aud were converted afterwards The ,nunc.
ton granted by Judge sutherland forbade their iss-
ing any more OF this stock the removal or the books
nom the sale OF THIS stock from being used ex-
cept for the payment OF the legitimate expenses
OF the company. Tho Legislature mad de-
clared that the capital stock OF this company
should be so much, and required the company An
order TO thus Indicate the amount OF stock To 0ie an
nfhdavlt from time to time showing the amount OF
It's stock. with this Injunction q notice OF mo-
ton for receiver. u might be said by the other
side that when this Injunction was granted that
should be the extent OF the relief winch was dc.
manded. the Injunction was car pd'te not returna-
BILE ut any definite time, ana compelling them IL they
desired TO get rid OF IL TO move against t With the
Injunction came the pray or Tor receiver, ana the
notice was O six days notice, almost the fu time
for notice of this application Tor o receiver.