The New York herald., 1869-03-25
NEW YORK CITY.
THE cNRTs.
CouaT-CHAmaEns.

Qhe New York Central Railroad Litigation
Charges of Corruption Against the Legisla.
ture-Anotier Injunction Granted.
Before Judge Ingraham.
6r0nDiH ". Nichols Us. The Ne,r YORK Central
RatirOad Conpany.-This case was again up yester.
day on motion OF plaintiffs counsel to restrain the
defendants from paving dividend on the c0mpa-
uys scrip and rom applying to the Legislature for
relief, the plaintiff charging corruption between
some OF the directors anu the Legislature The
that, as the plalntln is informed and be,
Plaintiffs lrigh.s, intend and threaten TO
apply TO the Legislature OF the state for
authority TO pay said certificates or 10 issue STOCK
therefor; that special committee appointed
by the Legis ature to investigate the affairs OF said
as has peen @ ro ~ Se m ade s IL @ @
as the piaintin is informed and believes said COM
nittee sat with closed doors and refused % permit
the reporters OF the press 10 be present or 10 be IN
formed OF the proceedings that some OF the men,
Ders OF the said committee have been IN consultation
with one or more OF the directors and oifcers oi
said company ana that majority OF said committee
have corrupy agreed with the said directors and
Legislature bill to legazc said resolution and cer-
ti1cates.
Judge Ingraharn granted an injunction restraining
the company IRON paying any money FOR either prin-
cipa interest or dividend upon any certificate or
certificates connony known as interest certificates
and described in the complaint, whether aireany
issued or hereafter 10 be Issued Till the further order
Of the Court.
The Action Against the City Chamberiain-The
Forged Check Controversy.
Before Judge Ingraham.
me People ef rel. Bu'nton ana Others IS S,ceeny
C7sansberlaia.-This case came up yesterday on mo-
ton for mandamus TO the Chamberlain OF the city
OF New York 10 pay a warrant for some $l,400,
drawn In favor or Messrs Burnton. Payment
OF this amount was refused on the ground
OF want OF funds. The question really involved
Is whether forged check for $l7,500 paid
by the Broadway Bank Is to be charged against
still In the hands Of the chamberlain, subject to the
draft OF the Board of Education. The defendant
raised question whether IL was forgery. The
aidavits on the part OF the paintin aege that the
purport TO be on the draft deny that they signed
them, and there are afidavts even that 1t Is
clumsy forgery, differing in many respects from
the ordinary drafts, partcu ary in the fact that it
purporled TO lie drawn to bearer and for O larger
amount than was ever drawn for the purpose men,
toned In 1t IN a genuine check. On the other hand
the afdayts fos the defendant that close
the resemblance between the handwriting OF the |
forged check and the genuine signatures that but |
Tor the denials the defendants would believe them
genuine.
Mayor Hall, who appeared for the defendants |
asked in compliance with Mr. Sweeny's return, that
issues, whether there was negliee aud whether
the check was forged, be framed and reference or
dered on those Issues.
Mr. Stoughton, for plaintiff, thought that the ques-
ton of forgery could hardly be considered as raised
by the return. 1t was only denial OF the forgery.
The supp0se ed signers had not denied the sigma
lures The COURTS erection, however, must OF course
prevail
Mayor Hail. recalling TO mind the case of Mr.. Cisco.
thought the question lairly raised, and the Court de-
cided the same thlng but the plaintiffs obectng TO
are.erence, the Court held thai tiey were enutled
10 q speedy hearing and directed the issues to be
framed and set down for trial on the Circuit alen-
dar Tor tile ursL Monday OF Aprl.