The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-07-16

as the person who presented the check. and VINO
spgned the same with the name of b. f. Iompkns.
The hearing OF the was adjourned in the all
eence VI one OF the witnesses.
SUPREME COuaI-SpEcIAl TERM.
Another Rniirond War--t*anid nnd Fisk
Against the Toledo, Wabash and Western
Railroad-A Receiver Appointed-He Gets
s1sSs5,GOO Of Cancelled Certificates.
Before Judge Barnard.
j. Goaid rs. AzGrtah 7. Body IT al. Gould has
brought an action as The owner Of a large proper
tion Of the stock of the Toledo Wabash and West
ern Railroad for himself and all other stockholders
who choose 10 join, 10 RESTRAIN the further issue of
stock by the company. His complaint sets out the
various consultations by which the company has
out of previous companies. and that the
Iany is In connection with the Decatur and East
-. Louis road. Under these consultations, he
rays. the railroad was limited TO $1,000 900 Of stock
hut had IN fact issued but SCI 600 Of that stock
up 10 The 7th OF May last. On that day very large
additional issue was authorized, as he claims, 10y /.
bare quorum OF the directors without consulting the
stockholders generally This he CLAIMS Illegal
der The laws OF ohio, the directors alone having no
power 10 ssne the stock. He further charges tnat
he purposes OF this issue were fraudulent. The
Garner issue of the stock was $500, 000-fve thou
saDd shares Tor The purchase OF the Wabash Elevator
company. The Wabash Elevator Company, he says,
formed with capital OF s2l4,oOo, erected ware.
houses, &C., on land belonging to the railroads with
The understanding agreement that the railroads
should nave a right TO purchase at any time a ma
Il
certain OF the directors Of the company purchased
this majority OF the stock FOR themselves. He AYERS
that the property oil that company Is worth more
Than It's STOCK al par but not $500, 600, not more
fnan $3.50, 000 He claims that this is transaction
by the directors with themselves for their own benefit.
The second and larger issue Of stock was for nearly
81 SOC, 600. And this issued TO raise funds To
continue the Decatur road west, under contract
with that road. In tins contract he claims the
directors or some Of them have secured undue
advantages TO themselves. When tine suit
menced this. latter stock had been issued IN nine
On IN EAFS I'm lpll had mot Imam
actually sold. These brokers were therefore made
parues All Injunction was asked against the de-
PENDANTS restraining them from disposing OF these
certificates and also relief against the individual de-
fenuants. somewhat similar suits have been COM
meneeo by James FISK and Dy ali OHIO stakeholder,
The latter In that Slate.
IN this suit preliminary injunction in conformity
with the prayer OF the complaint was granted, and
served about the 18TH OF June most OF the defen
CAMS The company Keeps stock registry book al
The Metropolitan Bank, but shortly after the service
OF the Injunction most OF their other books were
transferred from their Office here 10 Toledo
On tins fact and on certain OF the proceedings in
Tie Ohio ut receiver was applied for Of the alleged
Illegally issued certificates OF stock, and T.. ;. Lowe
was appointed sue r5ce Yer. lie on Wednesday got
POS esson of the certificates for and larger
s Ssy Ss sfss's nsy ~ ssss.:s 10 hun
The case came up in court yesterday on motion
70 punish Mr.. Azariah 7. Body and Mr. Colburn for
and Mr. Colburu both testified that they had received
come q hs sI ISSUE r stock and had disposed o.
was served on them. They also testified that tue
books Of the company had been sent away.
In Mr. Columns examination Mr.. Field asked him
Why they had been sent away Mr.. Colburn replied,
Dnd,r The adviee OF counsel that they were not for
hS a. ro to DO SO By te p, YP W. SS
MI Fullerton objected that as This was not forbid
den 10y the inJunc;iou 1t was immaterla.
Mr.. Field said he desired TO show that this was
done 10 evade the jurisdiction OF the court The
trouble with these parties was that they were will
Hg saqs "a a. 10 'Ss hSk but were not
M. fsfoSsgwe are not Wiling to abide by New
York law az now administered.
Mr. Field-Well that LOOKS little ike reflection
on the Court, doesn't 1911
Mr.. Fullerton said 1t was no reelection any one.
He meant what every one In tbis community knew
10 be true. He snoua and he believed every lawyer
would advise any rich company when assaed to re-
moved its property when il legally could.
Mr.. Field renewed his question Were no, the
books removed 10 Withdraw them from the Jurisdc-
Mir. fullerton objected that he had already
answered. thai he had done II by the advice OF
rel, and the further question OF motive was not
;rTiirueur- Y-s--~s
Mt. Justice Barnard said II wts no wonder
that some persons should desire 20 witharaw
properly from TINS stale But for rascals who cane
among us to do snch things tlgre would be many
among In want OF employment The Jaiis aud
Ioor houses would be drained.
Mr. Fullerton with great warmth repealed the In
snuatlon II intended TO he maze against nj clisnls
They were among the most honorable and upright
men OF the business community and this transac-
ton they should show was entirely upright, egiii-
Mr. Feld-fhat does not appear from The evidence
now taken.
MI FulIerton-That evidence was entirely ex parie:
they had had no opportunity yet 10 show the merits.
10 was a Counsel's duty 10 defend his clients from all
unjust aspersious ON their character, whether Il
came from the bench elsewhere. Thai duty he
should perform. " THIS was intended an impu-
taton on hrs clients he might have matters 10 say
in IL that would not be pleasant for his Honor 70
hear.
Mr. Justice Barnard disclaimed any imputatlon Of
dscredit ON the defendants! lie hal before had Oc
casion try and bring Messrs. Gould ara Fisk NJ
time and Mr.. Nandt rIt al another 10 justice, whtr
he believed they had gone wrong. Its EXPRESSION
re afed no more TO these defendants than 10 tuem.
Mr. Fullerton said, rs he understood his Honor ID
disc aim any imputalon on ms clents he had moth
ing more to say. Mr.. Field was there 10 protect Mt
6ould
Mr. Pied said that as the counsel had given M
characterization TO this transaction, according u
his view, he thought he might characterize 10 n hl-
He regarded II rs, ana expected 10 snow u 10 be
wholly Illegal and Improper aud he might al
fraudulent In this he AMI counsel for deiendant
differed and 10 was tins difference thai was 10 b
tried IN this case
Mr.. Colburn's examination was then proceede
with. The books had been sent 10 foieno, whef
Their main ONCE was; New York had hut a brsnc
once. In reply % his counsel he said the 800 share
he held were sold before he received the cetneate'
and delivered before the injunction was served
1be directors mad resolved not In anv way 10 YUai
the injunction which served on them.
In reply TO Mr. Field he stated that he aid n,
Know when the certificate was actually dellveFe
except from the ordinary course OF business nor n
exact time when he received the consideration
was done through broker; the resolve OF the dire
TORS was not formal, but conversation among then
selves
Messrs. David Dudley aud Dudley Field for paii
tlG: Mr.. Fullerton and Messrs. Crane a Robinson 4
defendants.
Uhe Dowiing-1cC IeIinnd rogIo-- dIour,
menr.
Before Judge Cafdo2o.
me y,eople eJ rel. McCielldaf ~. DOjcitn0 ~
Eeuu justices, dc.--This matter having been a
sou,ned over TO yesterday 10 enable Mr.. Mcclellan
In,