New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-01-06
THE COURTS.
THE ERiE-sUSoUEHANNA wAR-TrE APPEAL.
From THE ORDER CHANGING THE PLACE:
OF TRIAL. 1900

L. WV
THE ERiT-3UsoUEHANNA wAR-TIrE APPEAL.
From THE ORDER CHANGING THE PLACE
The appeal from Judge Brady's order re-
moving this suit from Yow-York TO Rensselaer, County
for trial came up for argument yesterday at the su-
preme Court, General Term. before Presiding Justice
MGraham and Justices Barnard and Cardozo In the
order made by Judge Brady Dec. IS, It appear that
Fisks counsel elected" to Try the Rensselaer,
County the choice Of two counties having been given
The order entered by the plaintiff but the defend
ants Immediately procured an order, made rotunaba
Dee. 20, to show cause why The order should not 10
amended so ~ 10 conform 10 INC decision which was
tiff "WofCT'ed" On the return day u was settled.
and Mr. lisPs counsel nov appeals ron both orders.
defendants, objected TO tho appeal from the first order
being heard and insisted that fhe second order
settlement Of the frat and the proper 10 appeal
fron Mr.. Field said that tire first remained tho fs
he heard now aud one 1T che next tenn. Ir Field
objected to this and said that the delay would he
furious they wanted 90 Try the in February here
where the evidence would be reported and published
and to do that the appeal must he decided tbs term
The issue II now made ur lie said between the sOacd
Ramsay Consprators on the ono side and The eocled
Erie Ring on the Other The charges against tle
Ramsay co1sraoTsa are fraud, embe2zement purloning
OF books and srrcptto issue stock for he urpose of
keeping Themselves in power These questions Ought
generally, az is very well known in this Court that IL the
cause Is ttied mere IT. VIII he ed by Justice nreham
March, or by Justice Sutherland. who sits IN May There
W 7
ct between different branches Of tie Court The oher
side have noticed this very appeal for the first Aondy
OF February at Albany and hat tho day for the next
meeting OF the term here, and n this argument goes OF
the next term will be brought on before the General
Terms, one in Albany and one IN NeyYor the same
day. That is spectacle we wish ~ avoid and II can bc
avoided by arguing this appeal now. There two
either If the other side did not get Justice Rrady TO
enter the second order substitute for the first that
their fault and they cannot take advantage OF their own
Mr.. Tracy denied that it wss necessary for Judge
Brady when le reseted the orer TO say that be reset
gJudge Ingrahsm said that they would refer the mat.
ter to Judge Brady which done and he he said tnat
the order settled on the 10th intended for resoe
ment Of the Orde, Of the 18th.
Judge Ingraham then stated that the Court had
that the counsel for the plaintiff OR Field would
Court in the disposition Of the first appeal Otherwise
the case would 60 over until the February term
Mr. Field assented TO tLis and an argument was ses
down for l0i a. III. to-day.
ANOTHER RENTNIsCENCE OF "BLACK FRIDAY
An important gold case, entitled David A.
Lindsay and VIM q. Chitick agt. Isidore and Solo
mon De Jonge, came up in the Court OF Common Pleas
before Judge Larremore, yesterday. Plaintiffs allege
that bcOr, the 25h OF September 1859, they had Dor
rOwod gold from the defendants at the current market
price which on that day amounted to sll3sO 0i amy
that they deposited with the defendants 7932 Is to Sc
cure the latter against any loss which, n case of the
plaintiffs failure 10 return an equal amount OF gOd ire
DEFENDANTS might sustain by OF difference III Tho
market price OF gold In accordance with the de-
endant were bound and undertook 10 receive the gold
borrowed whenever the should be offered 70 them
The defendant also agreed 10 purchase an amount OF
gold whenever requested by the plaintiffs, equal 60 the
amount OF gold borrowed and not retIned ana IN case
the amount 20 purchased rendered at the then nrkeA
price was less han the amount 50 deposited deIendahs
should return the balance. $50 . ,--.-.,
on the lt OF October the plaintiffs alege they requested
the defendants to purchase the amount OF god above
mentioned This defendants neglected TO 90, although
as alleged the market rate OF god ~ the time OF tho
notice and refusal 30t cent premium ana the de-
could readily have purchased NJ that price,
on the day following the plaintiffs rendered 10 the de-
PENDANTS tho amount Of gold borrowed, and demanded
return of the moneys deposited THIS was refused, aud
defeudants as the plaintiffs contend, applied the money
which was deposited with them as brokers' to their own
use They now aim the difference, which amounts to
S30,596 90.
The defense admits that before the 18th OF September
1869, the plaintiffs had borrowed gold from the defend
ants amounting TO the sum mentioned; and that plain
tfs deposited with defendants $l9032 but asserts
that plaintiffs contracted that they would keep IN tho
hands OF defendants currency sufficient TO cover the
market price OF the gold borrowed and then wholly neg
lected 10 them by keeping their margin az the
MARKET price of gold. On the -4th OF September. when
gold WIS EeIiius at 100 In currency. and When the
rency security referred to had become Wholly exhausted,
plaintiffs aglCed to settle and did se all their amounts
with the defendants at the rate Of 49, currency for the
gold They further admit that after the settlement was
made the plaintiffs rendered them the gold borrowed,
with S. which borrowed after the sc element,
the tender not made until after gold had largely
declined the market aud they declined TO accept IL.
The jury were still out at a late hour.