New-York tribune., 1870-12-06
THE COURTS.
me EHIF-RANsAY ~

The Eie Railway Company s1i' AGAINST
Joscpn H. Ramsay, Eaton :. Taylor NC Hto' 'horl ana
Coru,ills A. Runke was tried yctGlay iu uf supreme
Court Special Term, before judy Barnard. Ihe s'ltS
brought 20 restrain Rams aud tlc other enoIn'-' y
injunction, from prosecuting che $3.50 brought ly them
against tho Company. The complaints, lft1r re-
citing the large amount Of business done by the
Company, states that IN consequence 0f . orders OBJ
tlard hL ramsay no 40 attorney or NHti' .th ut
on hciaI OF Inc COMPANY without Ih' -.H uon 81 ue
Executive Committee That the outirr l.-Ilc Of the
ConIqny would be brought to stand tt fe .uit Tas
Rmsar and his attorneys Eaton q TayIor He entered
into col u I'm one JOIN D0,' 10 ap'f iot Ne ETe
appointncnt of Richard RE ns Receiver
Judgment IS asked on the following grounds:
Eirs That the sgt he deeard y9 d.
Seori That further Lree.li1r Do 81 gei
Fourth Tia. ibe Erie DcOn be r-sianel ir,l yesug any
wax tsiJana Doe be restrained from se'ur r',rsy o,s. Bn,
Ra COMPANY FhOG .u uofb nh zoe fl OF DIRECTOR.
Judgl Iar1ard, in calling tho case for Jrial, said
Before taking up this case, tem proper u State that
IL was said the other day tha had given AN allowance
OF 100000 in this case. Ilu W's ~ Ia 'Uo, aht ~
WIS uucredby a person who must have h"0"h NJ the
Mr Tracy then said tnat as the General Term had de-
cidcd appeal that the injunction ra"te i" tilS ease
asked for r. the complaint, there nothing to be tred
and the comp paints should be di-mis,'d. ,,,
the Gem rrr and decided Au aAs"cr LaH n put ~
ard the ease had been opened ON TIE part n tc Pau,,
tn, after Which an adjournment Lad Dech 'Iic'eo u
3ir 'facv-rbe motion 10 dismiss was not decided.
Mr. ied opened the clse moved 10 dismiss the com
pailr the ground that the Court hgd no cq1V lgrs-
dction Tor the granting 0i TIE Ic'I to. guy, ,I lUuI
Tcrn aud Icrsood your Honor 10 sl, 'nat II the
General A. rn de'llct against tae TainhH YOU were %f
going to siis8 tir complaint 80 l. iHte tc uesl4oh
va. not e., tpruuet war' the cas' ~. adlD trned.
Mr. C,IvaIld.r for Eaton e tn .or. said they made
no mr., on and there had been uo dcsol The relief
asked .or iI the complaint Was mat lu' - e AN. De
ro.fiaeG 10, injunction nom D"ecdln9 30 t-cf action
a-alst tnr i.Ge Railway Company.
jude. Blrlrd-rue Genera. I5lm has decided that IN
oG'Tr y. .oIraaer-rhe General Term decided against
the Erie R'iway Company bon .Hc .'iF ""Ig. OF Le uc-
iur relief IN thc complaint 80 'r iiioA @ lay
Tor concerned, anu the n5 should DC dismissed
J1Icc E1rqarlIf roco,lcct the complaint Alright, it
charge, giIoag other things crn7.l ct"' t' Ram
5!' ana !; ION o. o. a ~ ,' M I Jf fttis So they
h,vo right rp 20 on and ,Ty tat Fsuc. o., e,.
ltr gder-T0cr demand iO. reIci Us Tor an IN
juHci94 90 restrain Eaton Taylor from carrying on
Jpiae barnard I. not tora PRAYER to prevent them
NJ. t.dWaiauor-NUt t.at 4 latc tNUr Htcn.
tia. the TRIAL should proceed io Je trd fourth and
titil D, raclapts Ot tnr complaint. 49,. NJ
lol. thc c5a.p!a.,, b. di.ul. sed
Jree BHuari-L.ok 40 the fifth paragraph. Your
Ml i.icy-Yonr Honor viii sec That there isn't any,
thing CHARGED against I. n, $ cA,gi hl5 j rc thew 1
may light ont s they Ike As TO lalf,ay tiG iS9 F rs
nJt bat suit against suit "hi'N IAo "cHeii Aei"i
i9i. Ilararl denied the motion to dismiss the com
ottlVc Thia.er tcsacd that in November 1909, he
was employed iu the office OF the Erle ls"S ConP%
be went TO Mr.. Eaton ~ serve nott,C "i dp O
tue Eric Company in Tie suit against thch 10y RAMSAY,
and Mr.. Eaton oid Linn ne cou,G hot acc, C H. - aio'
att0rney had already app area loi ia chat bo
John a.. shley, another Lre employ q es ed tnat ne ne
inquired Of Eaton VINO appeared I'r ti' C0ilanS anu anu
by What authority, and THAT E4;on said they would see
Evard 4si-r. managing clerk for Field & shca-nan,
ta..Hra tu Eaton top Ain, Jhe i,A, oy' mat IL hl'
FIed #ou" cie 10 - Al TO-, 80 , m h R triad L,
Wi6 were c counsel for the Erie Company in the
jude Ulrnard-Idou' think it is proper that you
sr.nli 10 iuto the CATIONS OF 1893.
Mr ilei--\yc shan prove thar the object was de-
liver over this Company, baud aud loot TO Ramsay,
c0Gn.i 6o had app srad Tor the Eue Company in the
lgaoG 81 i PfaPi@Ffd t @ tnf t a6d III Ts eo2n
gel Mr. Etou, put INTO me complant PrScisely yu Se
Company in former lugatons. Il not that link IN the
chain Of conspiracy How can we ana 10 out except by
,It 4. yr tL, Era. C.,.ri7.y in, tt"se Ttiea
ton, Me.srs. Porter, burril, EIto and seward.
Erie Coupiy, testified th5t TIE casItr paid no moneys
without vouchers certified hy Controller Pres-
neut, except acccptaLCc- and Os payable payments of
10 man ,oui b. rad Without the authority Of the CON
uoc the pay rolls were sent IA before Tie 5t OF each
month, ana payments telun on the iO,h; about 1900
iH the workshops we've aaont 500; q freight aud 80 pas
seuger trains run over thc road daily each way; Eaton
b. W sleucss, ting cashier Of dc Ee Railway Com
naS ma&. test 'd DIS 10 tue manner IN "n''n p '"' were
@ Who WIS the attorney for the Eric Railway Com
pauy i'm l.05; =. l think Mr.. Eaton Was.
q since you soy You think. Aal lavc to a-k you !
tho year l.Gs ?
OBJECTED TOD
MI Ensign being recalled. identified two papers re-
ce,y,d on Nov. 2d, one being tie revocation Of Mr.
Kunkes app alurcc bell II If the Ere Railway Com
FrckhSm Of Eaton 4 Tayor ,s atto5ncys for Ramsay
Cornelius 4. EuuNo testified that be attorney |
years; one OF his brothers married daughter Of MI |
Ramsay witness served notice oi appearance for the
f frrrfHH NHFfF Nov
ber year ago. was served lctwccn 10 o'clock |
and Il In The l1Wauoni drew the notice Of appear !
spoke o. the 6upirct that morning, ana had
knowledge or ulImat0u before that time tat sult
me about my fees when drew this notice Of appear
ancc; did not 20 the Office of the company consult
anybody as 10 what The defense should be- think there
moi Know Of lny order appoirti1g a receiver 6av,
pcJIauc, the morning OF The 4th and revoked it on
tht 2itb: during that tiuc dI MT move step; adj
e lyc e his uotc or the stock but he never paid the
note; aittrWard bought IL back at the price sold IL
ON the ss-examiuatou Mr.. Runkle said that the
sut >'urob-it ny hr ~tOpturd 10 determine whether
or not when road earned more than IT. expenses the
pref fEod stock was not entitled 10 diydcnd had ap
pear,d Tor the Company AZ various times, in several
suits, aud wa, acquainted with the directors under the
Old mau'@rment oh the morning ol the 2lth OF NOyem
ber Mr. Eaton cune into my office and said that suit
had been brought against the Erie Company aud certain
of the drccoIs ana that Mr. owen aG askcdAim TO call
and ask me 10 appear !or the Company, and that |
was requested 20 tu'c no steps at an until / !
heard fum Sir Dyeu, winch would probably be on that
day; ho also sid that there would probably be meet
ing OP the pended Directors ana they would let
know do; was not asked % 10 ii! tung IN the
~ an until revoked the appearance which
the lC-h, when Mr Eaton called aud s.d Mr. Owen
had changed his mind.
Mr Ficld offered m evidence the complaint the order
or suspension, thc injunction order and tie order ap
pOiDti4 Z G Becc,Npr.
Geo ~ ~topord was next examined and testified that
ne brought q suit auuir>t the Eric Railway Company
alluded 40 in the foregoing testimony, ana that he had
brought 10 after having al LttINitM with hr. Runkle
who mad rst spoken Ot it, lr aud hc would buy the
shares TO commence suit und eaNe hiin note for