New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-03-22
THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT-MoNRoE CoCSTY-sPECrAL TERN.
J1e People agt. The Albany and Susquebdnnd
p,iiyood N6mpnny Joseph N. Ramsey jan Gouid JdPcs
FISK IT, and 0hcrs-Moton OF FISK Gond, Church. ana
,e' To set aside the Judgment entered upon
The decision Of Judge Darwin smith ana nnhef %
Ramsey and his associates haa tSxen possession ., the
Receiver. THIS motion was afgued NJ une nohroc ,
Term. The Hon il A. Johnson otou VIM costs
Among the moving papers were an aIilhNit Oh N. I'm
IT. Marndae and certificate slgheh py Danu -, ~
Fold and others The nature ana tho cohtchb Oh tbS
nldavjt and certificate are set forth IN the opinion ana
Mr. Justice johnson IN his opinion charaeer@os anu u
W nnpleasant but yet most imperative duty re-
mains 20 he discharged in regard to inc papers on WHICH
th tiop ia i'm part founded The counsel for the Ram
sey party mon the argument, moved 10 suke OUT ~.
affidavit OF j. H. Martindale giving an acron o.
and Judge Smith before whom the acton was ILL., p
tween tho when the cause was snDmeu 20 nun S
docou ann the delivery Of his written decslOni anu
n The certcate signed by four OF the counsel 81 me
Chnrch party certifying that they had .haninea tie
amman Of The Judge given upon tho decision o tc case
and that in their Judgment such opinion was in every
material point erroneous, either III Iact T I'd non ihe
nation 10 strike these papers was paceu upon tuo
ground that they irrelevant Dpertneh anu So''
They then read "a part Of the opposing papers certain
anjdayits made by n. G. Nfoak and j. d. Mcfafianu'
counsel for the Ramsey party, ana aiso o. lhe wv
ri,us M the Court House to what TOOK place Det"ch
Martindale and Judge Smith at the portion Oh Ine my,
at which they were reSpecsyeB pcTen f What
some respects q modified and Inherent vernon y, ~ %
took place at interviews from that contained ID inc
TSe taiement OF the Judge as what took place at
either inieryew whether the presence or aD,ehce "a
third persons, not and in the nature OF tDs' oo'"
The counsel for the Church party, in reply 70 ms mo
on contended that naslnuen as me otne s . nter
cOunter aidavits to what had occurred az tnose
views 90 far az they could chose to go INTO hd, HI
ton they not al liberty to insist upon 'no S'AS
out Of the moving affidavit
mi. would iSuk be a complete answer. II any mo,
ton was necessary But no MOTION y indicated in
The motion The Court will always see 20 ~ Miious
,non hat no papers not otherwise strictly necessary
oIlo ypd IN 20
tend to discredt. degrade, or detane one ol W. r i
the several counsel for the moving party, each Tor nm
s.W in the most positive and emphatic manner dehed
and discaiucd any intention or design Nhd,cI VI -,
nuguIng IN any degree the motives OF the Judge OF vi
dsraragngy upon his character or conduct Ill
the matter contained IN the AFFIDAVIT ,,,. .o.,.o5
These disclaimers may and should be- thnh' aGucvg t
s conclusive upon the question OF intention on hc par
OF counsel But they verbal merely anu 10 hy an
ters which they may contain. No one, THINK whoi.y
unnluenced by interest or by the heat ana
OF the controversy, can read the ahda't 10 lu3s'or
without percoiyng at once. and beyond any DOUBT OF
question: that the necessary aud lneVlta1e w
the several matters set forth Ill the a1u"'I Is "1n
parage the Judge and to tLhE n,I nm his his
disrpnte and dsayor II not 10 ehai"n noudu n
The matters contained in the AFFIDAVIT are aIosethSr
irrelevant and immatera TO tne nfr, %, n5 can be
involved in the motion, and no legitimate purUse Ijs
served by placing the affidavit upon thc mes. htS
practice Of making motions in actions founded upon m
interview between the Judge who tried The cause ana VIC
attorney counsel FOR one OF the parties 10 .ne
md cannot as in seems 10 Mo De strongly discOun
tenanced and condemned In such case Je Juuhe ~
cannot heard either TO contradict false statenSnS
Which NAV made modify or correct one tohhue1
mistake msapprehenson sense 0, ironIlrts anu
respect Tor station higher ana stronger tah any Jay"
must of necessity prevent him from making any state
out whatever upon the subject. Aside from the mere
Improperly OF such practice which ali unbiased minus
viii at once aud instinctiyely detect ana admit ~ -
aurht with the gravcs and most serous dangers 10 he
due administration o the law. II - calculated 10 aecl
not only The independence of the Judge but the freedom
impartalty and purity Of the course OF justice also
In should me, never he tolerated. unless
indeed IN the extreme and exceptional cases rs
respects certificate in regard 10 the opinion OF thc
Judge IL has clearly place upon TINS motion
Even il could he held to merit the uutayorabe 1udg
mcnt pronounced upon it III the certificate, II was ccr
tainy in the Judge To pronounce an opinion
When deciding the There Is no prttcn3e that the
OuUlon of the Judge j. open TO review on the NOTION
and have not examined IT To whether IL L. sound or
un,ouud But Il 1t unsOund u does nos Affect
i'm the slightest degree the regularity Of the Judgment
which il the only question here. 49, ..,
The opinion speaks for itself and VIII he open 80 crit
IN and upon the hearing Of the appeal. but III Is
not here. The certificate tins motion s, az BEST liiele
liant aud Impairment. $500
must Therefore hold that the affidavit Of j. H. Martin.
dale and all other adaVts on both sides touching the
interviews of them. between said Mirndale ana
Judge Smith. together with the certificate an question,
stricken out and taken from the motion papers ana
not allowed to DO placed upon the n!es OF tine Court