New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-01-27
THE COURTS.
SUPERIOR COURT-TRIAL TERM.

SUPERIOR COZ El-ihlAL ILhN
Before Mr. Justice McCmR.-IhC Clark Bin
niger FQti-Whatis the QCsOH-It re JoA'. S Beecker-
Judge McCuuu Tuesday postponed the argument on
committing Nr Beecher contempt Yesterday morning
present hut neither Nj Beochcr nor his counsel were IN
Court judge McCuun directed an order 10 be entered
committing Mr. BeecAer for contempt TO Ludow-st Jail
At the time he stated that lie was Informed that
Mr.. Buugcr had gone 70 his home 81 Nmtestone, ana
directed order 10 issue 10 him to show cause why be
shoud not be committed FOR contempt adding, intend
that he shall quit The country before he shall quit the
Subsequently, at Il o'clock Mt Pryor rose and stated
that there had been mistake on the part OF MS Oppo
the hour and that MI Bangs was now present
Judge McCunn inquired # Mr. Beecher were in Court.
Mr.. Pryor said that Mr.. Beeeher was represented IN
Court by counsel, and bis actual presence not being
Mr. Morgan on behalf OF the moving parties, then read
the affidavit which the motion founded TO the
= bst,., ~ III y, q, a., - rtrv alft,,1i,tei
Biunger, but had not obtained IT,
Nj Bangs, for the respondent, presented several OBJ
returuable on Trial Term, instead Of Special Term
Second. That the order was void ID not having any cap
Beecer We're rot parties 10 any action, and no process
served on them. and no undertaking named IN the
judge NcCuuu-Therc IS an undertaking on file,
Fourth That tie respondent otccr OF the Dis
tr Court Of the United States and by the provisions Of
the Bankrupt Law 10 action could DC commenced against
Judge McCuuu.-But this is not an action.
Fifth There is no contempt alleged person repre-,
seujug himself alr Bcecher went to the door and
asked aGu.,tauco this Lot al allegation against Nj
Beechcr
Mr. PRYOR argued that all that necessary thcn was
FOR Eeccner to deny fact Counsel misoo6 The charge
The ground which they proceeded wa, an attempt 10
disturb Of the Court in his possession OF the
property This the gist Of the natter and did not
depend any nioruaues OF irregularities Al Tie order
OT the affidavit.
Judge NcCuun held the allegation sufficient and
oyerIuled all the objections.
Nj North then read Sr Beechcrs affidavit to the ef-
feet that lp had with Ills counsel 10 Tie store OF
Biurrer G Co., and had asked admission. lie had after
ward gone TO the Receivers and IN pleasant and cour
teo4s eouECFsatJn WitA c4cA Aa9 ashtd tAcn TO sur
render The property, which they lad refused.
Judge Mc'u.u here dismissed the j aputy Sheriff..
Nj. Pryor claimed that a. demand having been made,
the question OF jursd, Ul, the important question in
tie matter, was raised
Judge McCuur-Yes that brings the question squarely
M Pryor argued that by the Bankrupt law, which
the respondent appealed higher law, the Receiver
forbidden 70 take property adversely claimed unless
By due process o. law.
Mr. Bangs arguedthat if there any question II
was whether person having belief that he was ell
titled property justified In asking for II in gen
temauly way. Their views were very fixed and they
proposed enforce them, but at the same tne win all
ilaj respect the orders OF the court which belonged Of
night 20 them But they lad no desire 10 settle thel
by hand % hand cOnflCt But they ul DeIlele
that under tine prov >Ous OF the bankrupt law the whole
title 10 this property vested ID the assignee Iuls,
however, grave question 10 be tICd on mere
motion 20 punish iOr contempt Inc question now was
whether he, quietly asking a receiver Tor property
beeYcd by him 10 belong 10 him. the assignee was guty
Mr. Pryor coutended tnat the demand Of that Courts
officer surrender what was IL the posse sson OF the
Court q clear Of contempt. As TO the other
question, the assignee not III such position as ne
claimed. That question he was prepared 10 argue III
another Court winch, PERHAPS 10 had better he re-
ferred
II the Court would commit Mr. Beechcr. he would not
30 e. jail lie had little doubt the habcas corpus had
been already issued which would bring the question be-
fore the United States Circuit Court
Tie Court tOOE tie papers, reseryiug It's decision