New-York tribune., 1871-05-03
THE COURTS.
>,,,n ASA SPECIAL PLEADER.


THE CASE OF HEATH AND RAPHAEl-AffiDAvlr
snN nv JAy GouLn-MR. EvARTs on THE STU
ALTON.
Tn the United States Circuit Court yester-
IA, Judee Blatchfordheard tho argument on the order
rcouirin Jay Gould to show cause why an atachment
bou,d not issue against him for refusing to produce be-
Tore the Master in Equity the books of the Erie Railway
Comnany Mr.. southmayd opened tho argument in be-
half OF the English stockholders, and said:
"This order is directed TO two points, rst an attach
mont AGAINST jay Gould personally for his refusal TO
nroducc when ordered to do by the Master In Equity
certain books and papers OF the Erie Railway OonpN
second an application to enlarge the authority OF 'no
Master in conducting the reference ordered by the Oo
in this case such enlargement has become necessary On
account OF the discovery the OF the roereh'e
of certain facts which could not be investigated WIZ"
the original order wasSnade."
In showing the existence OF these facts MI sOutnnsyo
reviewed the history as disclosed by the evidence Of the
shares Of Erie stock claimed by the Engsh stockholders
and commented strongly upon Gouds swearing that
President the Erie Railway Company he ola not know
whether or that Company had stock ledger In re-
gard to the enlargement of The authority OF the MASTER
he said; ,,o,o. .,. no, Orsser, Themselves for in.
yestigation could possibly have been anticipated
our stock has been stolen in most outrageous manner
Ieitae TO regard it such. We did not know before
that after Fisk had plundered as in an open msnner'
put the Proceeds of our stolen properly into ni;
order not confer sufficient authority upon what
Master to thoroughly prosecute the investigations ncb
powers as will prevent the defendants from poe9
delay by trick and device at every stage OF ,G
attending the issue Of the $SOo Of conyerne 1 9ot tS
and the whole disposition Of this hsPre the Master the
entire case is completely stopped therefore re- ASK is
the ends Of justice be fartassSaJ JSy Sy gould
Instead Of eX.Indge Ptnepont William A. Beach ap-
dictng the rnmor that Mr. ficrrepont had witndra%n 2
from the ease Mr. Beach presented TO me court Ie o
90 VI
Mr. Fyart @poiteIy invites the United States Circuit
hcd Sc1 amid ns Mr. osd isS
That there no disposition the part Of the Bre Railway Company
m 1SF n s @ I G this sHs SSsp Se counsel SS
Of company that The SAID company ana h' oeRoema
Of aid books in court eaunc be legally required, and
SS @ 10 10 he nOved said Sooss from their proper place
pOs the Offices Of said ComIany that while there are man
80 novel production Court Of aeh would be required By The
nsSSSsaS SaSSSs S'' Of of' ne daily business Company d b
m s5s 70 pGapS sS .p5 nTy is that said COMPANY
this and each Of the officers o. ss6 GGmPany my 50 s 70 @
copies Of any upon sad % books t may ~
& e % Of said Sc%P'ny 3 A9S 3d. 70 sn 70 A Ps5, SSs
tsahy for Their eOnps,s .. IN ~ % anu '
And this aegonsn further e & 5 y; before o5 Ins as S no
did arise from dPeet f9I that officer or for the
as rom De oonSictOu this dPnent that
es ass scS Ss aSe Of s sid eomVs"
S d SS would Ya e1 H sSs & % % and nas' Ss injury
And this de5caen further says that not the
pose h epObnt Of the said Company its officers 50 far IS
% and s1Dtgs sIy Certificates Of The ck Of said Company
g.s % d s G are re % a sn g is se I ooL meoei IL the
y % So s o19s ] aGas s s an'1 snch po~e.on as
Opponent believes founded real ownership by them
Sbsr q d derH '' xh sS successful a. would S5 5esa de
H4 s.a.s % ne II. sams Of Court ;S s s s SsY
peyen, the eoR'gn%a,o1 Of that DC aegp and compel &
abandoned by the plaintiffs IDacr tie advice Of COUNSEL ioI the
rsi vas asked and irs% considerations arising partial re
HO this into this Court and new suit was Instituted & u s.d
End Il Soaaon i now ps;usy papers the record in
Supreme Court q & sSs state ate, %sss sa upon % ' re-
@ Supreme nee Court @ were ao be safsnaer by said sSsiyer 70
p,. 9s S him & ss such 5 Re s1 - s1S c1 %sn s5 and ID e1s1s
certificates & the 81 O6 shares obedience TO said oir
tbeegPon him by said Copan that such or made By Jus
of and
has ever since reDs1Sd in and uRs & S ed .S '' c ,'
pan 70 @ @ % Ss dI G 1sS eS Sa the nri for S the the
PoTos % % 1 5s ro @ ~ s a gmPSy s ssi E.s
preliminary to the registry of the newly Issued stock mentioned IN The
peceon The time Of Se notice vii e1Ie ~ % sSo" va s
And ,b dspope further ss that the issue of 900 shares of
so,k ssnIa. ~ IA u CpnT @ hat s Ibis epoaent ndTise aud be-
b 60 o iS % sn hat .e ps OF ne certificates 50 far a.
Aforesaid aI,enae sy said Receiver as ihs basis for 81
necessarily follow from compliance with The rule Of hs stock ESchanse
oei osc would have answered the purpose that although
advised BY bis counsel and believes inquiry into
validity pertinent this auoni nevertheless ordered by tins
this deponnt ready to shcri every facility for such nyg
the bereneore Afforded and he believes tdat t ead
Company and each Of its officers will do So
Mr. Beach concluded in long argument, that the ale
cations contained in this affidavit showed sufficient cause
why AN attachment should not issue against Could and
censred Mr. SOuhnayd for saying transactions
OF the Erie Railway Company with Heath & Raphael
robberes. He remarked also, that the receipts OF
that Company were about 10000 monthly, ana that,
therefore the books desired would greatly
damage by throwing all OF its affairs into endless con-
fusion To support the position taken upon this adaYt
Mr.. Beach read from HOwdrdS Practice Reports, vol
xiv page M 10 the effect that officer OF corporation
cannot direct the production of the books OF the corpora
tOn open Court but that the Court can order their III
speCtIOn i'm the Office OF the corporation.
In reply TO Mr. Beach, Mr. Evarts, after referring TO
the previous proceedings in the case, SAID:
"Up tO the commence OF this il was not pre-
tended that any but the English stockholders had
what the situatiOn In the course Of the nveStigd
tOn before the Master TO point where the
oral testimony was INTERRUPT ted by the inability OF the
witness 10 continue his answers without the aid or GER
tain books OF the Erie Railway Company. Then the
Master standing mpaTtiay between the plaintiffs and
the defendants directed that those books be produced
the Court to 60 to the Office OF the Erie
Railway Company, fondly imagining that the Grand
guile il from the Masters dingy old office, and knowing
tnat such change would greatly advance the interest
OF the Erie Railway Company and possibly increase the
dignity or the United States Courts deny the power
as IL Is TO the Grand Opera House If we are not
entitled to have the books of tho Company, won't get
entitled to them, appeal TO the Of the Court 70
sustain that right Gould declined TO produce the books
here and decline % attend court in the Grand Opera
House. Decision as 10 thelssuing of the attachment
reserved
THE TAYLOR WILL CASE.