The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-04-02
SUPREME C0UsT-CRhmSERS.
Fraudulent Hail Ring.

belOTt Judge Sutneriauu
Lorenzo Iorau us Horace Barnes Chas. r. CROSBY
us. Sdns-This was an action originally brought on
I'VE promssory notes for 5000 EACH made by the de-
PENDANT Barnes, resident OF Boston, Mass. At
tacnments we're in due process issued thereon and
levied on the funds Of Barnes In the Chatham
Bank OF New York. In February Barnes,
through his counsel, made motion to discharge the
attachments on the ground that ne lived in New
York and was not a nonresident. That motion was
heard before Judge Cardozo and denied. On or
about the 10th Of March following Barnes caused an
application to be made TO Judge sutherland, In
chambers, through James 4. Morgan, his counsel,
for orders discharging said attachments and giving
undertakings. Judge Sutherland after granting one
or two Of the papers observed that the same parties
were suretes in all the cases, and Ihereupon not
only refused to grant the required additional ORDERS
but cancelled the orders he had already signed and
TO PLAINTIFFS counsel. 1t appears that such ap-
plicatiOn was given, but IN few days Afterwards
Mr.. Morgan, counsel for the defendant, caused ap
plication to be made by persons, as alleged, In his
employ for new orders discharglng said attachment.
DIFFERENT sureties were then represented in each
case. In case the sureties were II. c. Smith,
Irving place, New York, and Emile Brie, OF 3s West
Fourteenth street, New York. In another case the
sureties represented were George Shaver 1884 Allan
nc street. Brooklyn, and James Campbell, OF
Boston road, Brooklyn. In another case the sure
ties n were James Harrington III ClInsons avenue
Richmond county. The undertaking IN the other
case, which was for s6,ooo, has never been seen
which the order dlscharRing the attachment Oh
tained although dilgent search for 1t was made in
the ONCE OF the County Clerk and In the chambers
Some short time prior to Messrs. Birdseye and
Crosby. counsel for the plaintiff learning OF the dis
charge OF the attachments defendant, with his coun-
SCI Morgan and Brie, one Of the suretes had called
Ut the Chatham Bank and succeeded In inducing the
PENDANTS funds for which the order OF attachment was
originally applied for Before the other funds were
Withdrawn from the bank palntifrs counsel, having
asccrtaned what the defendant and hrs counsel had
done, applied for and obtained order staying pro-
ceedinrs, and yesterday moved on aflidavtts pre-
tachment be vacated and for other relief IN the pre-
misses Counsel At The same time produced am
davlts setting forth that there were no such persons
a. the sureties Harrington or Campbell; that no
such parties resided nj the places named that there
New YORK. and that the surety. A. g. Johnson. was
openly and VIGOROUSLY without property; that he
had no credit, but was compelled through poverty
70 buy MS groceries five cents. worth al q time.
Jsdge Sutherland, after hearing the aidavits read,
and almost without listening to argument Of coun-
sel for plaintiff, granted the applications setting
ASIDE the orders dlscharging tue attachment lis
Honor, In granting the application said that this
case exhibited the most extraordinary state OF fraud
imposition and deceit he had ever seen practiced IN
court OF justice OF that had ever come under his
knowledge. IL was 30 shameful and subversive OF
all Justice and equity and such an imposition on the
bench that he hardly knew IN what terms to de-
nounce this practice OF giving bail to vndicate
here implicated This fraudulent and Illegal man,
ner OF giving ball could not be too htRnly repre-
bated by the Court and ne eh0uld, before Diminishing
finally this matter seriously consider what further
orders he should MAKE In the premises
Counsel for the plaintin, Messrs. Brdseye and
Crosby; for the defendant, J. Q. Morgan.
The Custody Of a Child Contended for by
q Mother and Grandmoth er--Dccislon Re.
served.
IN re Hdbeus Corpus or George r. korris.--This
was an application by mother for the custody Of
child an intelligent looking boy about eight years
old, and nephew 10 the late George =. Morris the
poet II appeared that the chllds parents were
married In 1850, and the father died in 1894. The
mother was then In feeble state OF health ana OK.
pected soon TO be confined. The boy was taken by
the grandmother, Matilda Morris. and her daughter
to stay with them temporarily as Is claimed 6y the
mother but they, on the other hand contended thar
the child ~as given them. Since that time the boz
has lived with the grandmother, visiting his mother
at intervals Not long since the boy, who had
been at his mothers for some time was taken
away while the mother was absent and a note
left stating that he had been taken to his
grandmother's. Thereupon the present pro-
cscdinQs were instituted. IL was admitted that the
chief question 10 be considered was what was beat
for the child though ON the part Of the relator u wss