New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-02
FIELD AND ERIE.
MIR. DAVID DUDLEY FIELDS ANSWER TO
THE TRIBUNE.
TO the Editor Of The Tribune.

both sides Of controversy the equal benefit OF your
columns, am sure that You win publish what write in
the same manner in which you published your own
writing. In one respect, indeed, do not stand on
equal ground: you write anonymously; 1 under my
II the writer of the article would hut give his
hereafter should lie write anything more on the
subject, we should then stand ground precisely
equal That however must be left 10 your own sense OF
justice.
The history Of years lawsuits" 70 which your ar
tclc refers processes TO give account Of four tga-
tons, viz. the Ramsey suit the Preferred stock suits,
the English suits, and the Churchill m0Hddmus
l. The Ramsey suit comes first If there ever a
suit that ought to be defended and defeated, this is it,
Ramsey, having not a dollars worth Of the stock or
bonds Of the Erie Railway Company, procured to be
bought ten shares Of preferred stock three shares Of
common stock, two sterling bonds, and four other bonds
FOR the express purpose Of bringing the suit the money
being paid by M David GroesbeCk and then, without
getting transfer OF the stock. making any demand
whatever, taking the stock and bonds into his own
hands for more than an instant. he commenced the SUIT
Of Delhi, in Delaware County, u the most naccc5s
BE places in the State, and swearing that he was the
owner and holder Of pastdue claim for money against
and legally payable by said Company" obtained without
notice TO the Company any Of is officers, three orders
of them suspeudug eight out OF the u Directors Of the
Company those Eht comprising tic treasurer
the Vioe-Prcsdcut, and Controller and tie counsel OF
the Company, The other enOinug those eight Directors
the third vomiting property OF the Com
pany the person appointed being the same Mn Groesbec
who had bought paid for and Chen held the bonds ana
stock. more faCiiuus and monsIOu5 abuse OF judi
cis process was committed No wonder that the
Legislature, the recommendation Of the GOVcrnOr
passed au act 90 prevent similar abuses for the future
The suit thus nauGUoEJy begun, was irauduenty
pr0secutcd-hat is 10 say Mr. ton, one Of R'mSeys
attorneys. got M c. rrolius \. Ruuc brother Of
Pamsry's Sonu-av, and an attorney Of IHE TRIBUNE
Association 10 appear Immediately for the Company so
that when Field and sherman attorneys for the Com
pany III the by authority OF its Executive Commit
tee, notice of appearance M Eaton refused 20 re-
ceIve on the ground that another attorney had already
appeared!
What do You say 10 his transactions Was it lawful
for Field and sLeamm to cHde.yor 10 set aside this
fraudulent appearance OF MI RAe. and TO defend the
suit That is the fst point to be settled between Us
II you say il not lawful, then. please, tel me why
Prcsumng That you Will say it was let Us proceed with
the discussion. The object Of the injunction suit against
Ramsey TO get rid Of this fraudulent appearance
which i'm the way We supposed, Of our getting rid
by motion i'm The original sut, OF the three most extra
ordinary e. yaiic orders which have mentioned. Hay
ing secured appearance, moved at the first spe
cia Term in the Skill District set aside these three
e. gOric orders, and they were set aside The
plaintiff appealed from tlis motion, hat abandoned tLe
appeal when it was called. portion Of Ramscys COM
plant struck out at another Special Term IN tie
CHANGED to New-NOrk, where, for the first tlne II a
reared on the first Of June. motion made before
Mr. Justice Barnard not by hut by Ramsey, to open
tile order sending the cause here The motion was de
MED the ID OF August. Ramsey appealed. lis al'-
peal was heard at the General Term in September ana
the order affirmed ly Mr. Justice InIaham ana Mr.
Justice CarJozo The noticed for trial at me
October term, the first time When il could De tried Mr.
Ju-tiee Barnard sat at tlat term by assignment OF all
the live Judges The caLci IN its order on ih'
9th of october, when the plaintiff moved 10 p"..-
none for the term, allie giug that be hal
been prevented l.om preparing for trial Ivy an injunction
obtained against MIN i'm suit of the Company, ana inst
an appeal was pending from an order denying motion
60 set aside the order changing hc place Of tal TIC
PM The of Is days and SGT 10 Tor t1l on inc
Goth day 1 October. on that day the plailtH moved
aain for the same The defendants claimed as
they had on the first OCCASION that the plaintiff had
never paid any regard to the injunction The Court then
postponed again for five days aud set tie case for ti
pe.cmpioriy on the 2jth Upon this being done, tho
rautT sulpeuacd several Of the directors and officers
the Company for the 2h ana they attended on that
day When tie case was then called, the pauih sill
renewed Dis motion 10 postpone 1t was opposed on
aAdtvlts, showing tnat tie Iiain,if was volunteer
having had originally interest III the subject Of the
Ita ION ut having bought it for the very purpose Of
BRINGING the suit that he attorney and counselor
al tie Court and knew well tie risk he ran IN bringing
n j. wsuit; that lc Lad commenced the suit in the
most uuW. lTdntabC ana NCAdtluus MANNER lhdl
when cnioilcd in the Compauy's suit against
Linn lie had treated the injunction with
Ccntcnut and utterly di-r carded it that lie lad IN fact
prepared for the Trial this term by subpcnaing three
C the directors aud two of the most important Officers OF
tie Company, Who had bccn by that means, compelled
o. attend. The particulars about the purchase Of The
stock and bonds and the fraudulent appearance Of Nh
Ruule were shown. The Court refused The motion to
postpone and ordered the Trial to proceed. Tie plain
ts counsel then asked leave 20 withdraw for c0nsulja
tion, which was eGutOd. Having abscntcd themselves
for about half au hour they returned into Court and
stating that they objected TO trying lie case before the
Judge then holding he Court, because ne was prcju
diced. they declined TO proceed with the trit.
Here the que ton is simply This: TIE j. &c hayiugrC
fused 10 admit that ne iIcudiced we've Tie defend
ant's counsel nevertheless bound TO insist That De was
aud say that though he would not put tie Gaze over
Hey wouldi
H. As to the su,ts o, the Preferred Stockholders. Unn
the present month have had nothing 10 10 with their
conduct You think it strange That there should he suits
conducted bymypmtncYs with The management OF which
i am not familiar. sIaneo as you may uHk il, il is
true nevertheless and every lawyer in considerable pac
tce who has partners will understand it, You do not
But am sure that Field ana Sherman We're justified in
all they did, Whether they were right wrong, is,
however matter TO bc determined by the General Term
of the Supreme Court appeal which stands for hear
ing at Albany Tuesday next TIL thn would DE OBJ
yously improper TO discuss the question in the ncwspo
pers After that Field and Sherman assure he ihat
they Will pay their respects TO you
III As 10 the English suits, with tie exception OF the
one brought by Heath and others now pending in the
Circuit Court Of the UuitcdSatcs. neither Inorany my
mariners Las ever had any concern with Them directly
OF indirectly. Why DO you ask me about these sutsi DO
Won know that was concerned inf thcni Have you been
so informed1 ala entitled TO ASK these questions be
cause YOU ought TO have had some knowledge or nior-
NATION on the subject before you wrote For myself ana
my partners have to answer You that We have not now
and never have had any more to do with them than you
have.
WHY do YOU seek to hold me responsible for all the.