The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1870-07-02
The Latest Phase of the Lake shore aud
Hudson River QunrreI-A Postponcmrnt
trI

The Latest Phase of the Lake shore aud
Hudson River QunrreI-A Postponcmrnt
Granted.
The application for posponement Of the mo-
,ion for IN Injunction In the suit by the Erie Rail-
way Company against the Lake Shore and Michigan
Southern Railroad and the New York Central and
Hudson River Railroad Company. was further dis
cussed yesterday before Judge Barnard in Supreme
Court Chambers,
Mr.. DOolitue said that the defendants made an
application for postponemcnt upon the facts
presented. They asked it a right, and without
any conditions. Therefore they were opposed to
the order Of reference condition, and thought
1t not warranted in ease of this Kind, which In.
yolycd the main issue. aud not a collateral matter.
II IA adjournment was made, they opposed tie or.
DER of reference, and ryed their right appeal
and they also opposed the granting OF preliminary
injunction as condition OF posiponcmen or other.
wise: First because the contract upon which the
complaint founded is a restriction upon com.
merce, snd void as against public policy second,
that it Was void because IN conflict with the
laws OF iA1 and 1850: thirt, because the
FIVE Rail~ay Company could not BY law, take
signmcnt under the third section of the law of
1870 or any ether law; fourth, because in tho con
tract itself there were words making Il assigna-
blc 1nh, by the COMPLAIN. 1t appears that the acts
Of which the Egic Company complains have been
done with their accuiesccrce ever since 1896 and
their Inches forbid any preliminary injunction, and
they don't in their complaint show THAI they have
pursued the special remedy provided for them by tho
contract ITSELF sixth, b. undisputed evidence 1t il
saown that there has been change in the action OF
the Lake Shore Company toward the Erie road
since its consultations seventh, In the evidence OF
three or Tour witnesses already presented there IL
positive denial Ian equity In tle complaint, and the
Court was therefore hOund to refuse kind OF i'll
junction as condition to pOsiponemeut OF the
hearing or otherwise; eighth, although upon the
question: OF we disregard or abandonment OF the
contract 10y the Erie Company the burden of proof
was on tie defendants, aud the fact may not have
been O, Salnlcy shown YET enough was proven TO
establish tsat the defendants expected to prove sucn
nblhdoimeht DIS large number OF witnesses AMI
documents and Therefore the cues tion Of an iniuRc
ton should be postponed until the final hearing Of
the care
Judge Barnard asked whether the Court was to
infer that ia tho event Of detormin alton to posi-,
pone, with condition. the defendants would con.
sent to pOstpohcmcLt'
MR. DoolittIe-Ii with any condition attached,
we DO not consent 10 postponemeni.
Mt Shearman. Then It is my duty 10 oppose any
reinforcement. Mr.. Shcarman argued that no reason
had been shown tor p0stponemcnt unaccomIOnicl
with reference. Ihe whole ground upon which it
tact and 10 show the violation OF on the rart Of
the File Company. The Erie Company had shown
ei ough 20 prove q reasonable ground to apDrchoud
violation OF It, and tue defendants had announced
an Intention of dSregurding as con rary to law.
The proposed evidence would therefore be entirely
Mr.. Beach argued at length against the attaching
OF any conditions to the granting Of postpone.
ment TLey were in that way 20 he forced
hio consideration OF the main que 'tion 1r into
the Eeccssily OF submitting to an order OF
rclelonce and an injunction. which involved
the whole merits OF the inquiry. 1t was un-
Usual practice, and he didut understand how il was
that upon simple ,GOtion for q pos ponement FOR
time 10 meet tho question of the allowance OF un in
junction, they to be forced to the very qGos-
tiOn Of the propriety Of an injunction. lie claimed
that the contract bad not been violated IN any par
tiCuaI except IN the sale Of through tickets, and In
that respect Judge Barnard had already decided he
had no power 10 ntcrere.
Judge Barnard said that as the defendants would
not consent to a reference u condition of post
ponement, he would deny the application to post
pOne
Mr. Beach said that the imposition OF a condition
was matter In the discretion Of the Court. All
they desired was TO ayoG consenting TO tue imposi.
ton OF the condition.
Judge Barnard then granted the postponement,
and Mr.. sherman thereuDon argued tho question
Of y partial Injunction pending the hearing,
The Court took the papers, reserying It's decision.