New-York tribune., 1870-12-13
THE COURTS.
THE RAMsAY-ERIE VAR
DENIAL OF MOTION For ID sOoyERY or TIL
ERIE COMPANYiS B -

"A
DENIAL OF MOTION FOR A DI sCovERY or TIE
ERIE CoNPANY's .poKs.
The motion made on behf .lf of Mr.. Ramsay
for discovery Of the books Of be Erie Company ad-
iourned from last week IN eronnd that Mr.. Ram
says petition not prope N verified and with di-
rccton TO amend the verh stion and serve 1t within
two days. came up agar yesterday in the Supreme
Court Chambers, before fudge Ingrahan. David Dud-
ley Field for the Conn any, raised the objection tha m
new Vehcauon wa not according TO the provisions VI
che Code Mr. fec' ham read MI Ramsay's verin9%aton %
which was tlal has read the amdaNts ahu h"'"'
the contents lhl eOf. and the same are true mot no
MIR. Field a' thai this was not sufficient nuI ," tsted
must th3 il was true except those portions ~ hc
ON ihsorma and belief and that a. 10 t1S I rpe of
tl Code 10 The eject that in eases not eXrrssGy ~ rS @
Ntded 70 = the old practice ~ chHlc 5r wIicG there
sowcd and claimed that in ths case IOr ItcS had Dot
was 20 form prescribed the chanc'il i""'"''
a. rI arqned that it had been held that they
could niocced Iv aflavt u such cas, aBu lIuneS h
what NOR was ncgIg & @ fbe same 10 he true Judge
which was done. lie afterward su '''' III INV
first verhcafon was slc.e&,, Il ,,ir ~ Nv psusav's
MIR Field then objected 10 VI. n IS, m KIN ~ i I,,rs
ei,f I'D IN had NOT been served ON hlti Judge ihET
nm, y,. M opinion that the motion was simply adc
iouTncd IRON lie other day. ana tna no ne" ho'oe o
"S,"I Sy PS,m s,id hat Mr. Ramsays affidavit was
-, ,it6 9u order 90 show cause why the defend
IN.'''9' VA of rrirce certain books Of the Company
,d Low ropies Of them 10 he made. The complaint IN
~. su iioD was thcn read. II states that Nh Ramsay
@ Ile 9,o ,yn%r of ccraiu bonds and alleges against
ranv n the Directors various acts a. gross maucaSnCe
i'm and also tua the general issues OF STOCK made
Az tcu were Unauthorized. and that the receipts from
Them had not been properly accounted io 10 the Com
pauy had been squandrad ny them lhtIe are aIs9
eeatous that tine defendants had not only appropriated
The money, hut had spent il IN influencing legislation IN
Ibis State and NeW-Jrrsey' and III guy ins p dao.
roads and oparahouse>. The peuu'M alleges
me commencement Of the acton IN N9'tn,offI' ,f
1869 and that FROM that lime up 10 TINS uonlh the pah-
tn hal been restrained rom/ taking any slels III lne
action and once, having ovcttepped the requirement.
of the Injunction ne hao oetn nhtd S'Nv its NoS i'
reason that tie motion had not been Iade lt\los!'
Hc also believes iat pielaldI@nn II W loI ,ii is Nv, -, ~
without production of the book, the allegations o. hls
complaint that i'm the spring at o' money Was USED 10
influence legislation pa NSWJcist!i tht sIl VIZ WI,
maid 10 Commodore Vanderbilt; That no 'uI ana atcu-
rate minutes of the Executive Committees proceedings
lave been kept that GOuid as treasurer Ieoe,i t ce
$ 100000 from Daniel Drew WHOM De retired rom thdt
cfco which has uo been accounted fur that an issue OF
convertible bonds was Haud4lenliy intHt l I7's @ @du
1hlt tht defendants have received some e4sN" rom
The earnings OF tlc Company when have been Sluh-
drred
Copd 10 tne eject that of these matters appear in
the hooks they seek 10 discover except Such rs are 9d
mtted n The answer; tia, be has been advised 10y his
the evidence To he obtained from the b,ok,; that Mr.
Ramsay la- stock slu,n- on tue book. Oi ie Com
non, was earned and thaJ Mir. Ramsay has attended
of the stockholders, i,housh general meetings
Nr weld next read the a0idavit of Mr. Ramsay made
brfore "a referee in which hc stated mat lis claim
agaius, the company was for dNlucrs. me amount o
which De could not state. and also in hac inicro ana
NAT he mad no knowledge of tnc ueoUs of TIE other
Directors cNcept tia they acted with F-, aud 'uld,
and that be believed their acts were hecd he states
That me- rendered :'0ooto satisfy uN claims against
inc C0uuanv and that 10 refused; and that hy was
also offered SIO the fan amount Of L. due, which DE
:lso refused The affidavit Ci Mr. Grot-ucch was also
Iead .ttiTr that De- bought the held hv Nj Ram
SAY and charged 10 20 him on the books o1 hs firm; mat
il mad been pld Tor 10y Mr.. RAMSAY; tAat ID. had
loaned Ramsay $4,000 o usf as he saw t ANA mat he
thought he had used 81 iH this suit.
Mr.. PccEham then reviewed the athdaNlts that had
been rad. and said they had completely 'n0ic icd te
standing uf M Ramsay lu Court ana showed uie ngi
charged AGAINST hul, there Tho opinion given by
.Iustce Parker denying the relief asked iOr NY lhe de-
fcndaut- and refusing 10 dismiss jie compliant
Judge Ingrahan said thIl be old noi lhuk ihat the
papers read were sufficient and That tEey must stale I'm
Them facts they wished 10 discover and that they
have not the ui UbtlMu. thtm elsewhere. Mt.
Is.elsu read uuu,cr Gcei .Ou~ showing that they
were entitled 10 scribe The idcts thtA sought "a dis
cover In ho most general way We claim. said lc. that
hands and that they should account for them. and also
that we have % the books, which ~ not de
MED. and that We do NOT know the particular Dooks ~
the entries seek 10 discover arr made and that
Judge Ingraham-The objection the discovery which
YOU ask the decision made by General Term. They
in which the surviving partner Of firm claimed that lc
had been d6fraudcd n the partnership. held that a.
night 10 the discovery, bul iae GeneIel Iefh ned th
they the property of The other defendants. am
bound by decisions Ot the General Term, Whatever
may he my views of the lrtIileiY OF tlc taHt.
MI peckhau said 10 Wd~ apparent thdJ the discovery
Uf the entries iu tine books necessary. hu IL was i'm
possible specify what particular entries would
h. required 10 2c'eNs u the books coud De- obtained
Judsf IrcrahaIr-The adoption Of me ruc yOur re-
marks suggest would open thc gate To allowing people 4"
examine books ia a case whether they Nely directly
connected with il or not. The motion rdl nave 10
deny hut with leave 10 renew, atndaNl-, showing
what entries YOU wish 10 discover.
For the motion, Mr ITCIlalu. Mr. Tacy, aud M Peck
ham opposed David Dudley Field, + g. shea'mau. and
Dudley Field.