New-York tribune., 1870-12-01
THE COURTS.
TAMPERTNG WITH A REFEREE.
A SUIT AGAINST FISK, JR.

Bodcn q Co Hr. Gray alleges that on 'ne "a ~ =,
at his request aud in consideration OF 5iI
onc-cichth per cont the defendants as'e'' TO- 80 -
furnish aud sen ana deliver for his account 500 sh,
- - popv,.r stock 100 shares at "'
and AN Al cs7 agreeing 10 hold the ""''">
of money remaining on deposit in s'leH n''' -
N2oo)-as a margin and collateral secul'!' -, ,oo
sgrocd that ia dine time he should 'i'hor ,e,
shares " the stock sold, or the cost OF 'n'' n.r
with propcr interest ard a comuissiono o. orc 60.
,,pt on the sd Of September the piaimin' : =
tcnicrod nor aQr,eneut the so shares, ana q" m "
nav +lc,, tle commissions due them for the SUI ~,
refused 70 accept tne stock Mr. Gray % G'.5' bc.
payment o. the balance on 0epo'il W. - ,7,,
thtS eaiA '.s q lli,, NJ i tug in tue stock flainth
claims 10 he damaged by TINS i''"7'' " ~
$1,000 contend that they never entered into
any such contract on t,s t,sirg r ~ to the plaintiff, ai OF
,.Iie was cxIatistcd stock or s enerso illo
~ .s oiICr@. @ az l Sbar, of Erie TO cover loan made
Z, tic nj, ,futiG Wnon TINS et,'h Hs.s uoUEni me W
zen 's i'i also claim $'21 - the balance due
floio t6e various uarsactons between them alA the
paG me case came w for trial the Court directed the
teai' -. re j. r. DSo'ittlc ir On saturday fhe
,se handed ni his report, in which he reversed the
ana Yesterday MI dridgt made motion 10 set aside
Tho on tue ground THAT undue influence had been
Nt win he seen sid Mr.. Edridcc by reference to the
papers that the allegations Of the pantih and Tue an
dJys read by bin have not been put IN issue ln one
single instance except the mere general conclusion
tuat the referee has not been influenced by I'M.
proper motives. Tic facts detailed that for nearly
Two rontHs he had decided the case, and had many
atcd Ills DECISION the u favor OF the plantin 10
The eNtcnt OF $4,000 We hear OF his delivering report
d,ccdy the reverse Of that thc goth. All the items OF
fact -Sc So igth IN this affidavit spectcay not one or
them S. OrsvtCd. To account luI lle lcathdpic
Clsu-c in he oipioi and deci-ione the rc'cree the
iat,r has made n ,tsten>eut that II was tecauso nc
found a item of Now-York Central proceeds taI cH
at Su3 instead Of $50 although tho SeneTa footin Q!
TIE account correct, l re WIS Il itif
crioras t0 Of tic Items IN the New YORK central
Tho absurdty Of ths Is Too apparent to require al gu
mont referees rcport or verdict formed an con
tlaeltious trivial would he unworthy Of support ia
te most inferior courts a'd could not he u"Ih'"Aed
Bat te a!acy OF thi. exc@-o IS lelteyaent when We
LOG - ' rvrai facts m the case Toe absolute de-
tuctoh OF the coHs sency and Naue OF Bndens tesl-
noy, rs direct fo.ii WIN t.e t ] ]a, 2 ' t '' i,to
and truth tic ior the defence The Ietere repeat
Wholly unworthy of belief, never Oh any occasion as
si-nc this clerical error in nc accounts as OF any
Etv-GoTk Central, he had reW4tel declared .l- iIl.-
don and determination TO decide +hs case dd''ra y I"
We have simply shown an these facts. and thcy laye
never been dcuied. The 1thrcat0us OF MT tlc'd are
moi testimony We have nothing To Offer to tim, Conrt
~ fie .gsa of Dr'i3r, act Lewis the old common law
doctrine is reahrued, aud is applied TO The case of
reterecs urges that 50 important the DECISION d" nc
gated question oi fact that the Court VIII G ie9l'
90 projecting suorT from any nisi7L, ana iha tGe II
regularity OF Juror 'l .-nu- q, t & M - ''i,s -
OF tine verdict 81 the report
only Which q rfIcpec approaches tOIfI
J. by his report That Icn't ls Nyle tI" lH lHt .
Of Howard Practice Reports 70 j. laid down as tar'i-
unreasonable conduct on e l3it ol aI'e'e'' OF ,.;t &
ho has been subjected % undue influence, >uljof VII
be- protected the report set aside ana me cause restored
To the calendar. Tuc ease OF baT affords one of Che
riearest evidences Of te wisdom Of tia, policy which
uan that which mas been pointed "U as the ou true
DethOdot trial namely 10 influence j. TO he GA'rtoa to
ia the presence Of the adversary. ,
thorn ma Nn
duoi this referee iu making SUCH remarkable change
ali Witin day OF tvo-whel lor nearly Two months
he had repeatedly announced decision 90 the ~.
These are facts, and they cannot De explained by lie
founded aspcIsicrs of counsel, more especially when
flcy are made by person without personal courage.
II the rule laid down IN Graham on New Iii '.hd ~
tie cases which have referred tO j. the law to-day iur
Courts who supervise the findings ct fact ana me CON
ouct OF reersSs ana lSnls' he s loiol must 10 so'
Mr. Field, ior the detense. replied at length He said
II Was Or the referee 70 Determine, first whether Gray
T9G balance in margin OF $1,000 and, L. whether
ihcse defendants worthy OF cTediby, AMI whether
tle statements made 10y te defendants tlat thcy Aad
S,y to he decision tho trustv ortness ot
Ity-cs Now tie counsel has pmp0seF avoided sfsting
e. you the eNtriorhy sdtc OF iaes tAd Dc hts dared
L. lay before the Court upon luls tAtUOFuUay action
with the referee uih liuo 5i I"y ds nc !tS NO. sue
,rc6ed he with his knowledge Of human nature, thinks
the olposte Rar M o Hu' @ nSf % y tbs Eih @ 5i p2 Soy
fsent attempt has Dceu made 90 change tie mud OF this
L. nc 6sOro the refeIcucc although he had Anown Mr.
seycTSl refeFees were first appointed none Of whom
were satisfactory to hoth p"1ues. FINALLY, Mr LthaI
Allen proposed To me the name OF Sir. Dooittc, aud
urged me 70 accept him. did So.
Herr SIr Field quoted from a letter written by Mr..
nd been handed t0 the Court: You 30 aud de
sired me take you q referee tor You said your friend
Alien could get Field TO accept yoU told you 10 wac an
Important case and would require great care IN dealing
against all oidldshinents ana that an! attempts tt
bupc you would bo ht1tcss. Alter the testimony was
uter worthessness of The defendants testimony and
tuc accurate testimony Of Gray"
,frIfta altf idtsf Ia
speak freely TO the reicTeei Can there be free cover
saOn all on side The idea Of any lawyer talking
10 a referee ABOUT the credibiity OF Witnesses without
the presence OF the opposing lawyer! Iw0uld sOOI
cut of my right hand, and 50 would any respectable
You know how YOU told me- after the summing up
that y0u should nnd for The plaECd" There was per
siStcnt attempt 10 warp this young mans mind.
"AfJer the submitted 70 YOU before your dcci
rheck You thanked for the loan, aud said you
making out report for F, my client which no Genera
favor, De lends BIN $3.50, and makes II cause OF com
pa iI aI me ne teT 5o HUEf s Hal oB b m fe9 d
tuns the referee had declared e. the PLAINTIFF cOunse
Now there is suggestion that ever gave this
anything except the statement Of Mr. Edridge. He al
legoo gave pass 10 Mr. DOOltle. Ine referee
says this is c Counsel referred to three cases. IN,
sh of Howard the Attn Of Howard and the lt Of Kcr
ulat II Mr Dooiitfle had found against me, / NIGH
have come before this Court, and said that although Mr
Doote has not been guilty Of absolute wrong still h'
must have been influenced by these private converse
uOs with VI. Edudgc. But FOR hiu the tempter, IA,
wan himself who tired to warp this young mans mind
,o come hero when thc report The other way,
yesIe TO Sc, aside on The ground Of bribery, Is per
ietuy uubedI1 OF.
Your Honor has laid il down Il maxim that you
would not Interfere with the judgment OF the referee
uPoh questions OF fact, but that they were 10 be re
viewed ON appeal and the only matter 20 be considered
~ you was whether tGis referee had been guilty OF I'M
biI conduct. II ls no more reason Tor setting aside
dIi itOlt tat he changed his mind tas le undoubtedly
idu u would be q 70 set aside the verdict OF
S,g DoGse neD they first went cut they voted aye
t t ~ i} came back voted The practice is eel
oIi IN The 9 Abbott I55 where the referee was per
Guae 's yu NJ own motion, after the case had been
tinna pied, 70 open 10 again, for BIN % hear add
Al ft..i.,..i.A' and then make up his mind.
thoucl he tS certainly had not decided the case, al