New-York tribune., 1871-03-28

A. That don't know; / did not know that they were |
q. You heard innaton that they were expected 2
A. ~ No had not heard from Mr. Eldridge ,,,, ,,o,
said A. don't remember
q DO you know which of them spoke frstf a. NO.
Q. The one met that did speak, didn't he say "what are
@. Will you say that that was not exactly the language
used : A. don't remember.
was not itf A. don't remember they said any such
O. Do you remember anything that Gould and Fisk or
either OF them SAID IN tnat interyiewi A. don't know
and they all signed this paper-the directors that were
| there. -. A., -
vol II YOU remember anything that Gould Fisk
either Of them said at that interview A. No; don't
| know that do; don't remember
O. Did you not come TO New-York from Jersey" on
more GeSa0ee proesed bonds that been sold
A. did time, yes, Sir; Drought that money to
o. Did MT you bring it more than one Oeeasioni A.
Wren Vom came here on that occasion, did you see
NJ vndnrhiItS A Not when brought the money;
saw him AT different times, but he never knew that
When ' voT did see him did you not converse with
him about the money! A. No, SIR not that re Le'n, ]
| O. Did MT he ask You what had become Vi 'he "o"''
| q q And Won made no statement about tf A. don't
Temfoer H re- ta d5 ne Gxgd tod yoa Mr. Field think
time he did say ought % take that money ana depGs
that was before or after do nj remember ,,, him,
o. When was that, in one of your lnterVleWs"itn ni
O. What did you say in answer TO that suggesuoh ~
told him could not do tha, r,o soid acted very
fooishy in going there. and all that; that was ABOUT vi
At the conclusion OF Mr. Drew's testimony, Mr. Beach
said that he expected to recall Commod0Ie Nauefn,,
made by Messrs Fisk and Could but Mr. vanderbilt nad
been suffering week from rheumatic anu
had word that although he believed the nght De
fore he would endeayOr TO be present e could not
come He was instructed however not TO de.ay 'Ie ne
case on account OF the Commodores Illness, ana ne
therefore closed the testimony for the defendant
Mr. Field said that he also through with his test
Mr. Beach then moved for dismissal OF the complaint
upon the grounds which he had urged when the |
plaintiffs rested their testimony, some months ago and
upon the additional ground that appeared from the
proof that the purchase OF the shares OF stock from Com
modore vanderbilt was portion Si hieS,%tna,S % h nhu
ne negotiated the settlement Of doubtful claims, and
was conclusive therefore upon the parties III TINS action
Mr. FIELD resisted strenuously the motion a non
sujt lie claimed that the plaintiff had made a clear
cause Of action for the sloooOO and presented me fo
First February March 1866 four actions we're brought the
Supreme Court against Ede Rway ComPony ard it. directors
the people Of this STATE another in the 'nane Of Frank
Of John Boogood and Saba al Of them being for The
oHensi6ie purpose o. nCeng M ~ st s Which on we're m pang
rS During tbe said month Of jane defendants through the
aaency Drew ard Frank Work entered into negotiations ssa
Jon son F : hs % tTe Gnpssy for the ment Of tie
the ted himself " eoaGng @ IN 'he SGrs
Scontnue that The said Richard Sche should 80 from
.se .Sed fs be T reeycS 30 share, d The @
empa5y sni Tat the Directors q plaintiff '6o purchase EI
Boston Hartford sad fre a1oli ,SmPao Tor
100000 per cent? and that the plaintiff should pay tue interest
T1rs That on or about the day Of June 1863 the City Of
HwYork the said agreement carried into effect and pursuance
obedience to orders Of the Directors Of the nd ne9rt
Dne% we" %Ts d then e1, sa Ss p Sns0 de cd denns casa ana
s ao %65t aSaSs % Of 'ss 81 $50 9S SS'Rei Sqionas plaintiff
President 1nd Sss "a % in Its s qSTs W & & e bS S Sy the
defendant pnaf the aid officers in Ike 9bsenee 20 the
G5dsnt Gs5 he sidtons sum Of the funds ofthe
FogtA That at making the compromise Aforesaid the
d Ore. was largely HasD 3 L ,tastl s 55 5 M 's SUPREME 1t Court T
ing ofths plaintiff from 9ao,ng any G o e S % ns
the Plaintiffs claim against said Drew , 81, al, ...,,
G as oeet Ie sSd 3 fio ntnos sf % PIe. into
s,qo1s s ,.d 5 ma.1g n ,s o % Ss @dnss Object he cd at
that @ s %oy S.ye % sSP n.s s s s G E and Drew % to @ S %
1s3ee vita tie other directors q To. PSS @ o s @us @ s I
s .Sn is a .SSad be and 90
Tia s f u ii d.a a aS r Of h@
s .s &, ne yt. 1s S $ % h as % ss he
,s ss % so ISs s 'fiH II sfS @ vs %
the defendant 50 900 share, Of - eaD .Se + 'sd md dsm,'
tSs S i,''a1 S %oo 'a Hs % e. 3 a@
m SoSS5.Gss oDd SS LsT to eoa SE he plaintiff the said sun
of 10000 from 4s i1 ay Of Jql is g.
certificates Of h capital t@S. % the bed 5effnda @ bound to
m 1908 and return d. bona; q So iSs 5 Boston Hartford and
Ere 3,1 sTI f tG%Rn @.1t to be 5ss eae S5ofs S5
Judge Barnard then announced his decision, as fol-
lows Stating that he finds no support for the allegation
Of fraud and dsmissnC the complaint without cost:
| JUDGE BARsARDs DEosos. Al. =. .. |
With the exception Of certain portions your aa anie the set
as proved upon , suppose would usth most Of 6 anags Of
ter YER, saT ear & bs n motion otto wa made for s p
e. a SUM H e( S That however depended upon questions
of fraud and second hs question Of Law as TO be
the GsPs ,sv to .rs the Sn and Ss AMI
haze cS%f to n the 5 S5e14 sRs s %lSs % S p a. 81
p.t nl a. the defendant E ca@e that charged
defendant OOned o. bonds o money a%S9nsg s 70 '0ss %
allegation that Of the bonds stocks and none by
f5se % OK .Sms ST it% % & . he Enc RAILWAY copn BY
tns % set S. settlement Il Is alleged further complaint that the
had power & to ms SS % ali sh woi seSe a
With the defendant fraud Of The E of the Com
RsOyi S1,i the The Tsns s SaDoaS % aeS Il ''''S'H
Vow With regard allegation of fraud am utterly unable to snd
that the time the present PsGns " % @ brought b different
people whom cSmbaied BY The dS S 6 70 & 'gr Go %
,sS you'd recover That Company wished nd Of these lug o
and. and :S:f Sau.:. . % stss Ss Sslfs of se Bos
;a y.s s' ia P'n % negative S: '@Si;S 9S da%He
,,oo, for TSSi %aSS have power to bind the minority sd that
ing convened BY the recS' ri, iaat dn. sn1 % ys NO a
undue inuenee no control & e S nOoqs t' %
Sse.ss To- them question regard to tue Ere Rail
WAY Company having the power to retire ta own & ,s G -I % 70 &
tner o"T sg are speca excepted BY the 81 section Of the General
Raos act T5a from @ Ir osa stoci The vry
the negative ag1ih,t
know a. Nc more ght than out oi II
NJ he me- as Their law 10 pyeIt the
n of The ma On looking a. in that Light have
maintained There no
TN, moved ON the defendant OF his officers nothing
ba What had legitimate AL proper right 70 do SO FAR
s The settlement cosoee. Tie officers the company
hd right settle kese iu ga.Ons IL was their duty TO
| 10 "a a good settlement, and II one that would
hepeft snd benefited presume will beneht the STOCK
b The plaintiffs the time this suit brought governed
and controlled by et Of officers WHO thought that In toe perform
sa they should mse an effort to seo,eI bele
The of they deemed improperly az
They commenced this suit IN good faith and
& hnL IL youli proper PUNISH any by hning them
With have mistatean honest mistake
on the pa the when they commenced The complaint
sa.1 hufx tloutro