New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-12-01

o. Snne That was the Whole OF the foundation for
charge like that preferred by William Belden against us
Honor NV advice Of the same attorney.
kEMARKABLE PACT DEVELOPED, ,,, Tor
the remarkable fact now developed, that the gentleman
who showed much frankness had carried about IN ms
Receiver and refused to give the name OF the Re-
ceiver Who this Receveri They ana not knSW
they fighting He asked again. VINO was this
Mr. Porter-If You we're the Attorney Of the Erie Rail.
way Company you would know III mas Deeh seIfoo vi
the Erie Railway Company.
Mr.. Feld-0n whom was 1t served o.,
Mr. EatOn-It served, the 25th OF september on
a Director of the Erie Railway Company.
but was not informed. Mr. Field said that the whole
argument was summed mp In the last two minutes; lie
should not the counsel who first addressed the Court
have the grossnes to predict what Court would de-
eide dictate it how TO decide but he did not believe
the Court would let this hold OF Injunction 90 Till II had
compelled these men TO unoose Their lips ana tel VINO
spurious receiver and who this cOusve Director
no one knew what amount Of commissions could they
gain possession OF but hour As they had chosen to
beyond IT, and would remind the counsel Mr Eaton and
Mr. Porter that they had been with him in 1865 III de-
Tending the very things whchn this complaint they con-
Mr.. Porter said he had not done so.
Mr.. Field-What not last Spring fight for the nghti
Mr.. Eaton made a similar demand when Mr.. Field
insisted that in 1868 hcwas the principal actor before tho
Mr. Field apOOgzed for using the Gg"9Henin M G m
tomne He was quite sure the counsel o nap dn T
great wrong the Erie Railway. The great pivotal TACT
fully sustained by proofs viz: That DO human nina
could devise any by which the interests of the
Erie Railway Company could be protected without the
consent and approval OF the plaintiffs IN TINS suit AS
his short he would send in written points so
soon as no should return from Rochester. 800.
Mr. Ketchum said that IN order TO avoid any appear
ance of being unwilling 10 stand by their own acts he
would that the order in his hand was an order for
Special Receiver Receiver, and that Mr. David
GTOesbeck named as Receiver
Mr. Field inquired who were his bondsmen but was not
The Court directed the papers to be handed in.
EAToN's AFFIDAVIT
Tho following is a copy Of Mr.. Eatons affidavit;
SUPREME CouRr-SPEcIAL TKkAIo Jaags BaIa r. 5
County Of TsoTor b B. Eatcn being du he has
and that COPY aia the urat to the
has been served him therein and Nat he a, one Of the stgs
complaint commenced and for sometime thereafter was one
Complaint are not correct and on Information that The
an o. we ssn t @ KY pcost S Le further aver. that
neither dPonent Henry Tailor ere ATTORNEYS for a Ramsey
and fraud untrue and that the facts as 70 an siorPey Appearing
or elsewhere referred TO- stated
nothing either SS or ad ON % aud s' 5
tbs Erie Railway Company did no. employ attorneys 70 appear
pOnen that all the allegations Of the eleventh paragraph OF the
complaint herein incorrect except that depoDeD dd draw 40 order
,P S LeSei, 5s Storsss aud said order for re-
eer was duy served on tie psus herein on And
depoeSt luther states information and belief (s1d reference 70
for whom depoocut was during which its affairs
better postab managed and Its credit stood far higher
than Of teI would not throw the business Of the
plaintiff igto confusion impair its credit Te a
economically and Successfully than under the snsug
restore the public confidence And in regard to The aforesaid
] s Int my COMES 6 making such service we're
tiled they pnport he certified And donent ayers the facts
az 70 6l sI R%1s others 81 i than 81 M Field shss%s
ofths 2 i0st service Of the complaint Injunction
cam SaT one Of ss EIGHT beS Mr. Lane s counsel
a5s been IA @Gs allow R s y o Of gc u.psDdsa
after such suspension 70 'PPi1' Sdmpspy the suit or
IN any way 10 in the name Of the COMPANY or
on It's bssa Inc sReqn ~ @ IN Ss opinion to be uhs to act
represent said COMPANY considerable time before TIE Ses
plant injunction AID order Of suspension had been ~ ie bands o.
person; With directions s 'fre p o would once Be so served OF The
directors len unsupported one lived a Badao Ind ohe at Bngham
could be held and dponert being with the who made
re- service , % upoTsp. for The P1otecou Of the Compsay
at be seo"d PANE t o eet but that oer expressed Gn.
naOn to take any action The matter and was IN gouo as DIS
him da that might call down upon bin ihe hostility Of tss ,onlsd
pended director whom hs y, ht g t 5 10 s I.S nv he nm.
should suffer for want Of oversight before The Board eonid meet
nd briefly explained him What Btenled and
% STs ot o sfa e OF meet and lax 5 bousi
not hostility to The Interest, Of aa COMPANY Du, 70 & %
would be highly injurious to ihe COMPANY to sae saa az
Ose suspension for gos. neglect 9fauy ,,...,,.,
s EN- Dte b. the suspended drscio expressed '5s
whether director could authorize an aPe,T,le psPoae
Compnys Affairs should be promptly net By The remaining
sp fS az pY s oissr for sa e o
p9H be- Rpy et s7e iate8dd to be
sn understood him but upon the sns o. M na.e Sfs sn
Mr. Dven to authorize and desire h sPonenp to aye
Mr. Ruuke appear for the Company I'LL the Board could meet and de-
accordingly cOnyeye such request 10 NJ aas ana NJ Run
an The 's% S , ' . G.9P s! 1 S ss at
ADD uuncumbered IN acting sHg IN the interests Of th bne ks
. 1y G1s I Ae.s1 Could Tk and Lane would have for their
Saty 70 force them back places Directors Deponent heard
Dive. h,9g e 1s T ca; tine Informed
bad @suDdsrsiGsd Dim i 70 gi pss ,S Sa S & %
he
desired M Runke to continue his appearance be- dey9hen should
stating dpoHet requested aee and Mr. Ranhe revoked
such sgPorSGee r % 1hs h 5 ,S sTs hat pa acton What
taken BY Mr. hGrEe as such aOns sr hap sending ~ ~
take action, or receive any notice OF gye Iy consent
save deponsBi banded summons complaint he had With ha
or consent attorney and bsWseths time the said
Rnnk h and The time be revoked there was no
Sat and they did each other between d
statements contained complaint sdav in tbs ibeon
'' SS'T .ua 70 G su SG' or utsnG.d RELATION to I
consent order Receiver Or other proceeding. are
appearances sbeaman for the Company though be-
s s. S aRGo ne not returned S.us S s3s jointly %is
appearance for one Of the suspended DIRECTOR That neither sa
causing sad Rlke appear revoke h appearance an there was
requested appear because deOnen supposed said Den 50 desired and
cation With said Company tbs authority
the Directors 10 snS o e II. oS 70 %
to i GSTPsp ~, I'D S
stated or intended the said appearance being in In
intended 10 rejection
the attorneys by wbo the Company ppe does be 30 Intend
In saving that compelled regard such unauthorized
and 10 tbnk misfortune Illegal action Of the suspended d.
reco who as believes alone undertook authorize such appear
snce) has also prevented any quorum Of the Board assembling
the placing Of the road ~ the hand. Of Receiver
be M under the control OF the present
naugesut An affidavit sale Company
taeb Schedule and copy Of the order Of Injunction Of
complaint and a1avs which said
dem granted vbch served Aforesaid and
attached said Company heunto attached
a a bundle marked Schedule d. Sworn, &c d. b. EATON
THE ALBANY AND sUsQUEHANNA CASE POST