The sun., 1870-12-08

will excite the suspicious OF every reasonable man
desre not t1e III will Of any mau, however nsig
! nhcant but aboye all would escape injuring th
feline OF any human beine unnecessarily bu,
can do no less than to put these iacts before the
Ccurt and ask u TO Vdcae TIE report 81 not VI opcr
or true verdict. can DO no more neither can do
Ices IS. .. Yours , Re- respectfully, y, n,,no,
To JAHHs h DooLirrLE, Jn
Mr. Dudley Field. for the defendants. opposed
the notion a1l, as answer to the allegations OF
the mover subm tied the following letter from the
referee. With an sffl7vt attached that every state
ment therein contained d Is true to his own knowl.
edge:
the nrrrnEE's sronr.
1Oe BROADWAY, Nov 90 1870.
Besgy, red y .stsaimu.
ot'tr or statement IN relation TO The case Of Gray
act. FISK. looked over the drst page snd finding
| I returned the raUer 10 ts author sinply stating
| that | must decline 20 fec,iyo IT, soon alter Mr..
SEQ me. sent 10 your ofice, met Mr. Sterling
| and was informed h, him thst Mr. Eldridge had
made IN affdaytt and n motion 10 set aside nv rc.
| p"rt for sferVd lraud Mr. Sterling tlen re I'd me
| the moving tauers throy ghOut and among them
heara read What suppose is copy VI the paper
| which Mr Edrids, sent me.
The charges contained in these moving papers re-
hect most .erously on me; They charge that the
| judgment in their favor. This accusation 10
FALsE IN EVERY PARTICULAR
Neither the defen tants nor from your ONCE
has ever approached me or solicited from me a CON
siderable favor to themselves except in the usn1l
OF legal proceedings, and in the presence Of
the opposite party or his counsel. OF tiis yo snd
the defendants are well convinced. l pass that
charge by without furtAer comment.
Mr.. Eldfldge states in lottor that said on two
or three occasions after tie summing up that had
decided In his favor. That Ia true far ~ that
stated that my Impressions were in his favor /
never made such statement before the summing
H NOR Ss.S ON As ss%s sy md x further as
intended to decide IN his favor. I beloved tho
hisinta had the riKht and the defendants tie wrong
| will state the circumstances that led NE to tha,
opinion.
In considering the questions before me. the vital
point was the credibility Of the Witnesses Eac1
important statement OF the plaintiff G-a, was
directly outradctcd nv both the defendants Bel.
d'n and Bradford Under these circumstance. the
wet-lt OF evidence was vita the defendants |
read tie evidences carefully TO hnd some clue to test
7 g creuisiiy Of the witnesses. During tho trial
isbS. that toe plaintiff had margin OF about si2 O0j
IN the defendants hands. This Beldon denied. Al
Que oil the sittings Mr. Eldridge called my attou,tou
VERY NrsrEmousLT
20 n item In defendants exhibit to wit. n nurehas
oi 3ol New York Central st ll31I He did not ell
Mr.. Fields attention 10 II. thought nothing more
ofthc matter until the case WIS submitted TO me
ON the final argument, after Mr.. Field had LETT my
once cousentng that Mr.. Eliridge should continue
mis- argument in his absence, Nj Edridge did refer
to thai item again. aud pressed It upon inv mind AS
an unmi@taknble ovldenco OF irlld on the part Of
the defendants
Aner toe case had been finally submitted came
upon II aran In reviewing the evidence; and II
emed ve@T riain to me that the defendants laI
etarsed the pla,ntif about 5000 TOO nue. on tili
one item. The defendants had ondeavored very as.
sduousb ON the tral to prove that exhibit an ac.
count stated between the parties. This looked like
"a lgaud, and | treated 10 as such. Al that time 10
seemed to me that the defendants were del bcr eiy
ATTEMPTING to dctraud the plaintiff. Such az attempt
had rcficN Influence over al theu uau lions and
would break down their Gre iibilite. Moreover,
ASSUMING IT TO DE 4 FRAUD,
i wonl mshe the Ulunda's balance at margin on
March a1out Sl2 2'V.-'ae sanie amount Nhic' tc
pla 4 says B'ldcn admitted that he Lid Win the
fe endsnt Th.s tact 1glin vent FAR in my mind
to weaken The evidence Of Btllcn aud Bradford
aud strengthen the evidence Of he plaiutiT,
Acui z On this assumpl ~, | slated 10 Mr. I'D.
ridge on two or three occasions when | met nm
thst would not behsye the defendants aai would
believe tie plaintiff. went further anil R,urcI ON
the amount 10 which the p'ainun would be entitled
maze tue amount about $4,000. aud / stated TO
Mr. Eldrdgs on ane occasion THAI ~ould eive the
plantIn Judgment for t1at amount. Aiterwards |
went over the evidence again. and found that my
hrs, impression in regard TO the item OF 800 New
the defendants had gyeh Of the purchase stated te
purchase at 1893. instead Of 1876 pee share AMI or
computing tue amount found that although Exhi It
stated the Puichsse at 1872 por are, tae amount
tAat the de'cnlant was In fact caarsud vita the ea
act smount. This fact tut
WAY piFrEnySr PHASE cS nv cA,g
f. was NOW evident that die defendant. were not
70 tempting io detraui the p.Ani by a .ul.e ac.
;v raruc.. Moreover he balance or MARGIN of tho
p'sinuG on March was rcdu' about e5.OOo by
ted bv the de endtu's. TIE testimony OF B,lieu
anu Bradford wac greatly strengtacYed anil tha
p-intil = much weakened. could not believe q
probable mat Bsidar woula admit the riaiutiu =
MAJ sin TO be about 5000 more than It VAS
TNere ~ no Circumstance IN tne case TO forii'Y
the plpinuh but rather tho coruary, and there was
non- 20 mp ach tAe cieihui'Y q william Bftien.
Ny arst impression In reslrd to EShit |, with all
~ le iiina'e results, was founded on a mistake
vhich forced Itself upon my n md aud Influenced
my judgment Whcn fouud ous my misisxc about
Two weeks after the evidence vas closed winch /
insist a natural ID ted hv
A CLERICAL EgEoR IN ruE DEFENDANTS owy
EXHIBIT,
which they never noticed or called my attention to-
followed the facts 10 their lngcli conclusion |
pgEched sni consistent in ~ testimony that tey
had tue weight o: evidence sith them. thea
eomple'e overthrow ofmy former conclusions. Had
l not discovered NY mistnSo, should have given
jgd- oen' i9r ne g.aieiai but did discover it,
oughlV convinced that my h.dngs Of fact are cor
rect. NJ conclusions OF law | will leave to the
appellate Court need not say to You shat neither
you nor the defendants, directly or indirectly had
anything to do with changing nv opinion in this
case. II was my oHn free act, 10 which vas i'm
pelei BY resolve TO do my duty as an onicer Of
justice
But there is one feature Of the attack Of Mr. r..
dilgr Which makes II; exceedingly painiul:to mo
He hls known mo for more tam tNn year,, and has
protrss"d great reenrd aud hiend.hn ior me Now,
he charges me with
BRIBERY AID FRAUD.
thought he had better opinion Of me This -
not ln agree ibc termination Of pleasant acquaiut
ance but there is one consolution: IL Is term "a
uo1 OF IN acquaintance wii,h should have pnrnel
comprehended its scope aud character Yuu
are at oertJ to axe use OF tins letter ln dCtenng
toutse yes and your clients from an outrage0u.
ctlunny. will make an AFFIDAVIT To the ru'h OF On
salemeuts herein contained should you desire H.
Very respectfully yorrs, j. r. DOOLIflLL, JR
WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT.
Counsel on either sAc reviewed thoir alvtr.arfes'
q u4rs u 81 and
some cutting roGso-O4s upon each ot.,f Mr. F..ll
sid:
Tae cain In this suit follows Tie dcfnndants
were! htvActs rlat ia speCulated IN steCks through
ucir house lie claimed that the ~ OF March 1864
b had iu their hands sl2y.J a. marcin; tlat they
scl or ou hAi day 800 Erlc. hort they stated nat
pcg Uought ~ IN a d covered the sale On Of
March, making heaVy loss, truth tney dld
not hny ia ftr hm at At Dut maze fictitious pur-
c asei that ho rendered the 800 shares Of stock
70 them In September following. The stock hay,
ing gone dow ao demands the difference, so 100
lie def"ndsun say mat teY actually dil buy In the
~ on M Aa-LILn q