The New York herald., 1869-12-01

porate interests which we're TOO apt 10 fan into the
hands OF those VINO ayalled OF their positions for
purposes o! piilage and usury But, final con-
dcmnation, Il was true, could not be pronounced
without q hearing An assassin strikes a man down
ut hts right hand with dagger. He would be con-
denned without nearing by grand jury OF
his accusers. And when Mr.. Drew was accused on
q former occasion before his Honor, his Honor be-
lcved the facts warranted the accusation and he
was condemned without a hearing. And whyY Be-
cause the law accused MIN on facts, and suspended
him In the functions he exercised. Was there
doubt that Judge Murray had the same precise uFis
dtction over James Fisk, Jr., and Jay GouldY The
gentleman complained that these parties were not
permitted to represent tile Erie Railroad Company,
as, on former occasion before his Honor, IL was
complained that Mr.. Drew had not right 10 repre-
sent the Erie Railway Company, Of which he was
the chosen Oflcer and show why he should not he
deprived OF his rights as o director But
what was his Honor's answer them Preclscy
what 1t would be that day II the facts IN the COM
plant were truef these two men had $40 OOoOoo OF
the peoples money to account for-n they usurped
the control OF the company and used for prohIgacy
and bribery the moneys which belonged to the cred
itors and stockhodersthe law was to pass on that
question and the tribunal before which the accusa-
to hear and pass ON IL. Ills learned friend COM
plalned OF these proceedings as If his Honor were
Judgment and Correcting The errors Of his
IlonOr's peers upon the bench. When was IL
that his learned friend discovered that there
was authority for judges TO sit IN judgment on
each other IN respect TO their judicial actions exceDt
in the form prescribed BY law. The gentleman on
the other side had had the GOODNESS 10 read portions
OF these papers only. and asked his Honor
| to pass on things which were not before
| him, but which were before Judge Murray In
the other proceedings. They were told that there
were no facts stated IN those papers but his friend
had failed to read the papers placed his hands,
he would not have labored under tnat impression.
Judge Porter tnen read the affidavit OF A. d. Ashley,
| given above and that OF Jackson ). Sllutz, COM
menting logically and forcbly on them TO show that
they contained facts and circumstances snflcientto
satisfy the mind Of the court Of the Justness OF MT
| Ramsey's claim. Mr.. Eaton was charged with
| designing TO obtain consent 10 a recelvership
against the Erie Company. That charge was iase;
| Nobody made 1t and Mr.. Eaton denied 1t. Mr.. Field
claimed authority to appear for the Erie Railroad
| Company. He recognized him as having authority
to appear in the present suit ana that was all. Mr.
/ Field stood there claiming on behalf OF the Erie
Railroad Company that these men should be permit
ted to piage; lie Judae Porter stood GOD there ere
| that they should not be permitted to plliage. Mr
| Field stood there and Claimed that an order
| OF the Supreme Court of New York was to
! be dened. He (Judge Porter) stood there to
| see that If 1t were dehed It would not be by the
the Judge who had pronounced It, II ne could con;
vince his Honor that his was right judgment would
| be in favor OF Mr.. Ramsey and not IN favor OF Mr.
Fields client. II his Honor believed he nad neither
say what they would, believe what they would 1t
| would not be granted, and he took that audience
leading case in which his Honor participated and
| delivered opinion which attracted attention in
en% Of The Merchants Express and
| Waterberry in which an opinion was delivered Dy
an able jarst which SO completely covered ,ei,ai
| read 1t than present arguments OF his own.
| (Judge Porter here read the opinion OF
| Judge Johnson in the case alluded to- after which
he referred several other authorities, among the
| rest an opinion OF Judge Cardozo IN tile case ol
Schell vs.. The Erie Railroad Company reported n
| being the opinion OF the General Term OF TINS dis
trct an opinion which his Honor had had occasion
| TO express In memorable and leading litigation,
| and being in accordance with every opinion deliv-
cred In this State from the time OF Chancellor Wal
] worth down to this hour, he submitted tnat MS
| Honor would no longer continue an Injunction
| which had continued in view OF these lacts 100
| Mr. Rufus W. PeckhaIn, Jr., followed ON the same
side in vindication OF the character OF Mr. Ramsay.
Mr.. Eaton explained his connection With the trans
| action. and showed clearly 10 tue court tnat the
charge sought TO be maintained against HIM in con-
nection with the appointment Of receiver &C., was
| without the slightest foundation IN TACT
| Mr.. David Dudley Field replied to Mr.. Eaton and
| asked who was the receiver. The gentleman would
| not allow the counsel who professed to represent
| the Erie Railroad Company TO know whom they
| could proceed against as this spurious receiver.
That was the frankness-that was the condi,
| tion OF mind OF the gentleman who asked
the court to believe that there was no coluson at
ALL and who sought TO ask him TO absove from all ap-
had said III his opening that his relations with the
learned gentleman would not permit MIN TO believe
| that he intended wrong. But that he did wrong
| and that that wrong still continued, palpable
II this Injunction was not retained, now would the
Erie Company get any Justlcey Iaey could not
/ appear, tney could not move, and the counsel re-
fused to tell him into whose hands this properly OF
the Erie VINO SCI y na Sea up as
Mr. Eaton-lt Is reclted on the lace OF the docu-
| ment.
Mr. Eaton-No, not the name, but the statement
| about the appointment. OF receiver.
Mr. FeldwI do not believe that any Judge will
ever let Justice lose hold upon Ramsay and the attor
neys until ne inds out who can represent the Erie
Company and protect Its interests. Now ask who
Judge Porter-I have already stated to the counsel
that the order for . receiver has been served on the
| Erie Company. II he wishes to find out he should
| 90 TO the clients he processes to represent
| Mr. Field, exciledly-Who is its VINO is itY
Mr. Eaton replied TO the query IN substance as he
| Mr. Field then proceeded TO comment on the fact
that counsel now engaged for Mr. Ramsey nad at no
distant period appeared in that court as defenders
| OF the Erie Railway Company against the very
charges now contained in the complaint
MIR. Eaton-I never defended an act complained OF
| there, nor do ever Intend TO-
Mr.. Field.Whats DO hear M the gentleman lt II
. isss and were we not. ali three of u.s. shoulder to
shoulder IN that case
Mr. Eield-Well, am prepared to say had but o
small share OF 1t compared with the gentleman.
u'SIs Mr. Field then concluded his remarks by saving
that az ne mad depart for Rochester to take part
In the other case he would submit hts argument
| his brief to the court on his return.
| Mr. Psckham SAID the name OF the receiver, about
| whom Mr.. Field appeared 80 anxious, was DAVID
| Groesbeck
| Judge Barnard-Hand me the papers.
| The papers were accordingly handed up, and the
| proceedings terminated for the present.
| Postponement of the Albany and Susqnehanna
Railroad Case.
ROCHESTER, Nov. 80, 1869.
| The Albany and SusQuehanna Railroad case was
further postponed until tomorrow the urgent ap
| peal OF the counsel for Messrs. Gould and Fisk
Judge Barnard telegraphed 10 Judge Smith request
ing pOstpOnemcnt stating that David Dudley Field
was engaged before him in the Vanderbilt suit and
that one suit the other must be postponed. The
counsel for all the Interests opposed to the Erie
Company earnestly urged immediate action.
Eiectment suit Against the 81. Louis, Alton
and Terre Haute Railroad.
ST. LOUIS, Nov. 30, 1859.
In the ejectment suit Of oakley and others Vs. the
ST. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad, recently
tried at Belleve, H., IN which verdict was rem
dered by jury for the plaintiff, as reported, the
ciat,r a for tho ocrnpancy Of eOme coal landa he.