, 1870-12-25
TIE ERIE RAILROAD ARCANA
strongly Contested Lcgu1 Effort 10
Get a ESlimpAe at the hooks mud
Papers of the Eric Railroad.

Our court cycles with unfailing Regularity |
continue to bring forward IN bold relief ono !
and another Of the inteiminable Etis Railway |
sui:r, With al those kaleidoscope. CHANCES |
giving them such memorable rtnown. Yes- |
tesdsy, before Judge Brady, Of the Supreme |
Court, game up the cAas deaiEnAte.fi in the c4l- |
en1a, in the peculiar iciomttic Of tbs courts |
as a. The r<ople Il rel Ftsnkiin H. Churchill,
es. Tie Enc Railway Company ct al" There
Ils large Attendance. Is there Always il 1t
theec legal tuulramelts, but male up manly,
Of coErre. Of lnwyers-
TITO plaintiff ia etoakholder in the Esis !
nAilsay COMPANY. lu October last he ap-
Piled to the President and Secretary Of tls
Iotd for permission to examine the books nt
the company, snch application belng tn1da
pursuant to statutory provisions allowing
Stockholders to examine the bo oks Of cornt-
Eatioue within thirty days prior to the ele.-
examination, being refused, application as
will be remembered, was ma1a to Julge
Barnard for Al alternative map
d1uus, Which wAs Argued 1t length aud de-
Mid. The defendants iemnr1ed to 7hess pro-
cceainGr, and insisted that toe case should he
mp when reached In its regular turn This
1stte1 canrse waa accordingly taken, and the
case WA reached yesterday
Mr.. Charles II. Southnaya mAde the open
claimed that tho opposition to allowing exau,-
pany VAS wholly based On tho merest
tecbuical gtounds, and thst lts sole
| purpose lad been TO etay decision in the
| case until the desired examination would be
| made too lste to accomplish the PURPOSES
! eoueht by the plaintiff He referred to the
| good old times when such legal 9uibbles vera
| rot the basis Of legal argument and action.
| and desire for 5ustiee, Eole and supreme.
controlled both .he esr = ~ nd The bench.
I sscn Of the elementary principles involved in
the csse, ard <;hich, he claimed, had been
utterly overlooked by the other side. lie
claiulod that the plaintiffs we're not eutitled to
= manddnnis. because they had not
zion to inspect the company books because
the grounds wcte not stated upon which thev
wished to see the books that the return waa
complete and valid Answer to the writ; that
1lr- Jay Gould was only one Of seventeen di-
rector, and that the m sndamus should be ~
rceted to the officers having charge OF tA,
bcoka. and not to the Incorporation. H.. cited
numerous cAses In Nh,. he called tha good
old tines, 10 which the ;zaviovs counse: had
referred, to snbst.n'iate his arsumInt:
"Will you he good CROUCH, Mr. FiAld," tho
Judge ami,lngly asked him while 10 ths midst
, Of his 1rguuleLt, '.to detino the dividing lire
between the gaoa oil .inea And the pres ssnt
evil da? as touching Law ,lecIsions.''
That's pretty bard matter" answered
~. Field. fright, pleasing smile lighting up
To good CID times when boy wss hung il,
England for st' aling .wo eggs. For himself,
The present were good eponSl times. and ht
! lad faith in tAo administrator OF Justice
"Assv Mr. Gould reluain,; permission te
, pxan,lEA the Eotke.." sud tho Judge IL
, ! auother p.1t Of the argument. "who shoult
,he application have been made to il not t.
/ ITO the go7e.n;us aolJ," ansSersd 3lr
! Ficlte.
1.-The ,!srectors?''
, "Ccrtainly.
I "Eut rurpaso there was to bs no meeting O
+. the directors in thirty days. Hhat thon:"
] "1lle statutes provide for the emergeucy.
/, terruptetl Mr. Sou!aaayJ, would ksop d
rcine from oae man viii: his lead behind hi
9 lors ears 10 anothe7 al infnit,l,a, aatl the re
: ali"
: This rllafien to the aur.l .rre .dssss c
Ere NaiIFasd managers excited grner.
!! !srgh, After which Mr. Field went CT; ,:th Ii
c argument without further interruptions,
b conclusion he insi-tci that the r.spop.1bilit
OF the delay belonged wholly to Tia plaintin
4 and uot 10 tbs defendants.
i Sr. Southnaya rrts::ined in Il lengthy arg1
y melt. lie urged that therA waa IN affirm.
I tive obligation festtrg upon t1e railroad coz
! pauy 70 keep their too1s open for IL
: i.spect,ou oi stockholders. lie denied th
L applicability 10 tho present caae Of ta Eugiis
g 4nihettyies cited by the opposing side. All;
> ! conclusion, argued that on applying for pei
i nit =icn to make tho exaniuation they yer
q ret bou:d to state its object.
o The Court took the p&psta and reserved IL
: dtGiEion.