New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-10-26
THE COURTS.
ACTION FOR LIBEL AGAINST A JoURNALrsT.

supreme COurt-Chanbers. Before MI JUSTICE NHuo|o'
In April last article published IN The Tunes as
TO the management OF the Erie Road and the transae
lions Of Messr Could Fisk aud Lane, on WHOM prl
founded The portion Of the article claimed ny nr
OF It's leased lines including the recent pIundeng
fraud upon the Atlantic and Great Western are gappeu
fast they realized In cash Tor tne gen,
eral speculative purposes OF GOnld, Fisk anu Lane
Mr. NOryel, in his answer spread the whole article on
the record and iusties In his allegations OF ustucd
tory matter he alleges That he ane) and FISK sought
and did obtain control with others, OF the COMPANY
mainly by purchased proxies with the oDeot III great
measure OF making himself rich by using his 9pportuhl
ties director, and has done So. That during tue
OF large amounts OF and raudnently Issued STOCK
having in large the object OF pecnnay gains 70
himself out OF such Issue. g. That In pursuance OF the
general speculative purposes he caused 10 oe piaoe
under the control Of Could several hundred tnSu N
York In buying influence and In seducing men from tneIr
duty In the Courts and Legislature ana IN otner Huh
tiers. L. That he advised and aided In causing, largo
amounts OF Erie Railway money TO be usen III au ot
scheme for causing Mr. Eldrdge the PreSdehs Of dne
In compromising suite and acquiring bonds Oh 1nS
ton Hartford and Erie Railway and to that emu advises,
$4,000 Ia these suits That he has caused large
Of Erie Railway money TO 6e deposited WIN Which bS
Gould. and Fisk were Interested aud had derived pecu-
mary gain from the use OF such moneys without
the Ere Railway money for his private specnlatons,
and to carry into effect schemes for advancing
and depressing Erie and other stocks; and 10 pre-
vent exposure and criticism Of his acts he has
paid or offered large To their favor
silence T. That he has used the money OF the Ere ha
way Company IN paying large ices 70 secure nsftnted
needless suits at the expense OF the Company ana aued
In causing Gould TO be appointed Receiver ana secsteu
compensation at the expense and TO the prejudice OF the
Erie Railway Company; and 8. That during last WINTER
the plaintiff advised large expenditures to be made 70
pass certain bills and defeat certain Others and ADVISED
the Directors Bill" o. That he was interested Tor MS
benefit in the contracts with the express
the purchase and renting of Pixies Opera House, and in
I'm oil rac Is
way Company used. 10. That lie aided III causing
stock of the Company, aud received aud used
their proceeds in part 10 make gain Tor himself
Atlantic xs EG ana GREAT Western and refused 70
made aud aided lnstitutlng suits TO that end, by
which, with purchases OF bonds Of the latter COMPANY
nearly ali these matters Lane, Gould Fisk were inter
ested In mitigation. Mr. Noryell sets out most OF the
matter and the flight OF the plaintiff to hewJeTsey
with Gould Fisk the appointment OF Receiver In 1863
payment OF money to him. the repurehase OF the
ments further alleges that in 1868 the three defeated
the wishes Of the bona de Stockholders py tue purchase
Of proxies and by the early closing OF the BOOKS M se;
up the issues Of stock which we're the cause OF Iast
Winters suits and says that the conduct ana POoy OF
Lane and the others caused the well gSnG i
belief among competent business men III NeW'lOIk thhs
the plaintiff would use the funds OF the company ~ pro
noting their general speculative PURPOSES "n iI ~,
pie hesitation. He also alleges In mlughuoh thas
during last Winter Lane having Win IsK ana 0ouin,
control OF the Atlantic and Great western Kalway con
trived scheme for personal proh when III part CON
sisted refusal to rent, and causing SUIT 10 DE
instituted against that Company the circulation OF re-
ports calculated to depress Its stock and bonds that
Lane TO Europe at the expense OF Erie ia uthet
ance OF this scheme lie further charges that the pro
curing Of control Of the Cleveland and Pittsburgh road
by the purchase OF proxies was for tbs personal gain OF
the plaintiff and Gould aud Fisk aud was accompanied
by circumstances OF fraud. He claims In mitigation that
the plaintiff policy the scandal OF American fh
road cement, and 1t was thu night aud duty OF the
public press expose and rebuke all said acts OF the
Another suit on the same article has been brought by
the Erie Railway and the answer fl this suit Is substan
TALLY the In the Lane suit Both these
suits came UP on motion by plahts 20 srke OUT te
larger portion OF these answers as scaudaOus ana mall
cOus impertnent 10 the Issue, or irrelevant or not
proper subjects OF evidence As TO other portions my
ask that they he made more deiuite and certain. NJ
sertOn OF the whole article vas lmpefune ana dragged
merely for the purpose OF raising false Issues and con
sections II was not averred IN them that the transactions
we're not account Of the Erie Railway Company.
Though out OF the motion ne might say as
illustrating the character OF The allegations that II was
well known that Mr. Gould had never received any com
pensauon for acting Receiver nor had they yentnfed
To assert H. though 1t was drawn IN such WA{ as 10 M
ply IT, SO With regard 10 the Directors bill he might
state that no action had been taken on TIE b nh after
the Directors had been unanimously reelected aud re-
quested by the stockholders 90 make the Classification
The whole Of the answer IN mitigation he claimed wass0
could not be corrected in detail 1t consisted bmpy OF
long series OF fresh hbes which the defendant desired to
be forced into be tried aud thus cofu-e tho
jury into disagreement resulting IN nominal damages
The whole answer was IN Itself new libel aud 1t might
the labor OF the Court as would certainty answer
the purposes OF justice, TO strike II AL out, leaving
the defendant 10 frame q new answer relevant
DONE then Inc argued that the allegations OF tho plaintiff
were too vague and indefinite. Dir. Eaton replied
arguing that the answer was directly pertinent 10 the de
Tense IT either direct allegation Of appropriation
the Companies moneys, or allegations Of such acts Of
the plaintiff directly connected with the ohese charged
the libel 10 amount 10 mitigation He claimed that
the suits attempt 10 ntmldatc independent Jour
nails and these motions an effort to call IN the shield OF
the courts when the attempt resisted with counter
attack The Court took the papers aud reserved s de.
defendant.