New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-03-02
THE COURTS.
THE ERIE-RAMsEY WAR.

ppckham
ton to tho motion to confirm tho report OF the referee
that the practice Is that the report and testimony taken
before the referee be filed with the Clerk OF the
Court and the said report should be absolute unless ex
ceptions filed when the case may be brought 10
hearing az any peei leF r sab dov after notice
OF the filing OF It, We claim that this question should not
be brought before this Court at the present tme for the
reason that the evidence taken before tho to
the damages was not proper subject o. inquiry before
The Court-This application. Mr.. Peekham. is sum:
mary either to be decided by the Cour on ns sPoe
OF the officers OF the Court tnInk tn
simple presentation Of tho report TO the court 10 Su
Client. - -. 49,. h,sts tina
referee proceeded TO find out what damages we nave
6ustanedf -,,- A.. .-t,....
Mr. Peckham-I have not had opportunity Of seeing
The hearing before the referee but my recollection OF
Is well enough far as regards points taken there to
present the Court at this time. At the hearing
on Friday or Saturday, had one witness Mr.. Ramsey
himself and offered to have him sworn and examined.
affidavit as to what the contempt alleged
against him was aud how Il was committed That was
and afterward stricken ont the ground that the
reference only allowed the referee to assess damages On
Saturday there was further hearing at the office OF the
referee and the counsel for defendant was present
witness who stated to the value OF the SER
vices rendered by my learned opponent az suGn an
retire from all practice for his life Being rather
surprised for New York standards at the amount OF
the services the OF them, desired time 70
introduce evidence in regard TO them but the releree
seemed to think that "a the order OF reference conhed
the lat OF March, whether anyone eOnsened or no
that report must be made unless the heavens IeI ana
the the other side felt rather dsincned TO
delay But they adjourned until Monday Tor the purpose
OF giving us "a hours to get a. mat a ana ne
general knowledge as TO what the evidence was tho
points that we take IN fegae 70 tis LII ionlv and
really show the Court what we claim on TINS MOTION
On the oath of November 1862 the suit Of Ramsey agt
the Erie Rail way Co. ct al was commenced. The next
day an Injunction was procured IN the SUIT OF lhe EIe
Company agt Ramsey and on the 25th OF me same non
hgui WA
Judge Barnard served The same day the ettorhsyslor
the defendant served notice OF motion In the former
case for the second Tuesday in December Special Term
at Madison that they be recognized as attorneys ior he
Company Notices OF motions to set aside the order OF
Nov 49, appointing receiver and for setting aside me
orders of suspension and Injunction 70 tnis Tune Mr.
Ramsey, il claimed by his attorney had not taken
single step the cause against the Company ASIDE from
the service Of the injunction on the day or the service
the Companys last motion papers on his attorneys, an
order Was granted by the Court at Delhi for plaintiffs TO
show why the orders Of the 2Sd Of November should
not be retained aud providing for substitute service OF
process on Could and Lane they evadng the by
force and fraud This order was served on the Attn OF the
on the 10Th Of December the plaintiff procured order
to show cause ny amsey should not oe pus1Sd %r
contempt in proceeding WIN hls SUIT against tue CSL
parry while II claimed that the only hng Ramsey ha9
done was to try and G 0TeT S sSor on eaSe When
had not been heard This order not served until Two
DAYS after the defendants he Company had procured
order and had served their notice OF motion ior e
Madison Special Term The first STEP therefore, taken IN
tSn ipincon in this action were all taken by the Com
pany and Gould ct al, and as alleged or the purpose OF
obtained by the plaintiff, Ramsey up 10 that ine no"
we submit: .oo, o. .h
purpose OF Furnishing Mr. Ramsey for acts alleged 10
have already done in violation OF the injunction 10
this action IL is clear therefore That the palntn IN
this proceeding entitled indemnity for any acts
Mr Ramsey performed since the order to show cause
Which the order was granted and upon such other
dence before the Court tending to prove or dProye
the truth OF tho allegations IN those papers Inc ony
acts which Mr. Ramsey shown to have performed since
the service OF the injunction ny to the tune OF the San
Ing OF the order TO show cause are trsr te severa
aborye efforts process defendant, and Sec
Ond procuring order from the Court Tor the defend
anita 10 show at Delhi The expense entaled upon
the Erie Company consequence OF such acts are III any
simply rendered necessary ny the slnSst ara
perseyering successful efforts OF Messrs GQuld ana
Lane TO avoid the service OF process ny the hiring OF
armed men to guard their movements D'u 'ne H1'e
ee1I Tie litigation since the service OF the order 10
show cause on Mr. Ramsey has been almost entirely con-
GneJ 70 aggressive movements Of the plaintiff The first
movement after tile service OF lhls I'M JUNCTION
heinz notices OF the motions the part Of the other side
practically 10 leave the plainth out OF Court ms re-
claim waiver OF the l9Juhcu9n We 1gscI " 20!
ing bills that incurred by the wholly aggressive
third IL would be- moustrous il Mr.. Ramsey should be
and the deliberate Judgment OF the term Of this Court
such proceeding would be reprOach To the admins.
Of justice and would emhody All Ihe lepusNe
ana unjust features OF an eTpoA JdcIo law -, -,
The opposed counsel says that the law has been a-
Judged the other way III the susqueAna case az oon'
ester We denyi The TWO cases are utterly d-siiiaF
But suppose as the decision in that case was not an
nounced until after the acts compalhsd VI eie s
performed does run the risk or AN imprisonment
FORT
supreme Court Of the state Inc puhshmeht OF ml,
Ramsey for the acts alleged in this proceeding WoHd 50
f6,aii: The order adjudging Mr. Ram'ey guilty OF
contempt should be vacated aud an order entered ds
missing these groceedlDss WIN costs, -, ,,..s. .
Dudley Field, one OF the counsel Tor pialn,hs re-
Piled TO the arguments OF MI PeekIan ne ssld that ~
was called stated without objection from tbe 1eiebu-
ants eSEnss m rs py reason Of Mr Ra1seys pro-
ceedings the snit that they were.I would NihSy
I'm the bill exceedingly reasonable The COUNSEL mas
asserted that adjournment was hsd 10 enspe hh 70
produce witnesses 10 show that the services ehuern9
were not value ana he has submitted that he dd
not produce them. Now we might ST. down now IN thls
courtroom, and call any reputable LAWYER ana 0otaih
an Immediate answer, which undertake to say Eonld
not vary materially from tne evidence before tG sSu ~
the testimony taken that ground Is 10 wnat TIE meas
ure OF those damages should be- IL your Honor eIeI-
eses Newly ork discretion. and put the fees established
your Honor Will not reduce them H. on the contrary
you think they too small you VIII increase them ana
your Honor in any event, Will add TO them TeasolsDe
counsel fee. g., ~. ,,--.-. l..
reply said do not intend 10 find fault with your HOnors
order The question understand IL is whether you
will confirm this report and impose upon Ny hansey
nne OF from s. coo to 10000 for this alleged contempt
Whether, in the administration OF justice the projection
OF the rights Of the Railway Company ana que regard
for the dignity OF the court REQUIRE aJ You decide 1ht
similar proceeding, You nave no. M yUnF ofver
ferea 10 ascertain the damages that company had
suffered contempt There never practice;
there never will be, am sure, any practice by when
you punish man, or drive on transaction occur
ring subsequently 20 the charge preferred against nm
So that the 18th day OF Dec. ordered Mr. Ramsey
to show why he should not show cause Tor con'
tempt before that time, you cannot punish Linn Tor
a contempt made subsequent TO that time What are
those gentlemen impatient TO accomplish IL Is 10 IN
duce your Honor impose this penalty upon MI Ram
soy that they know and you know is not authorized by
any law precedent. The-Ere Railway Company sdf.
ered damage before the 10th day OF December There
word of evidence to show that lie suffered dam
age. There no evidence that There WAS any uamase
Your Honor will sanction she attempt 10 charge such
as that charged the motion made by Senator Cbap
man at Morrsvle Of $3.50. IL was an aggressive moIon
made by the Erie Company. To 20 W and argue tnss
motion against Mr.. Ramsey, az Binghamton, tbere sa
charge OF 5000 and the items IL this case are maze up
tba rendered