The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-10-18
TIE lsGsas9LL CASE.
Judge Insrahams Deeision on Judge RarnfCNs
Ruling in the Great injunction suit-,he
Molten to vacate the Order for TX
amira.ion Denied-Ingersotl To
Be Tut OH thu Stand.

&. vhe supreme court Chambers yesterday morning
presented motley appearance Shortly alter the
opening at ten O'clock the miscellaneous crowd oc-
cupied all the available accommodations which the
place affords ana which ut best are but scinty. On
either side tie court room was fanked by stand
ing crowd, through which lawyers and Others hav-
ing business at The front had 10 elbow their way
with difficulty. ordinarily the supreme Court
Chambers is mol much throDgoJ. The explanation
OF the crowd yesterday morning was TO be found III
the still absorbing case OF the Ingersoi cxamina-
lion.
At ten O'CLOCK Judge Ingraham took his seat
the bench ana proceeded 10 dispose a variety of
motions.
Al haf.past eleven O'Clock Judge lngraham
asked II the counsel In the case OF Havencyer were
present. Mr.. Root, behalf of Mr.. ingersoll, said
he believed there was understanding on last day
that il Mr.. Stoughlon one Of the counsel for Nj.
Ingerscl should he absent the case should bc
allowed 10 sand over till Friday.
Ex-Judgc BARRETT for the complainant said
what he understood was that should Mr.. Stoughton
ne obliged to be absent to-day, as he expected at
tending the wedding oil his niece, the examination
should HIS Honor decide TO grant it, should not take
place till Thursday. But that was to prevent
HIS Honors decision from being rendered to-day
Judge INGR .HAM said he would decide that under
the twentyfrst rule OF the supreme Court the par
ties were entitled TO an examination N consonance
decide the c0Dstituttonaty OF the act M present
Questions may arse which might make an appeal
the next General Term, which meets on the ISL
OF November, desirable. Therefore the
ORDER OF THE COURT
first To deny the MOI OF r. Fullerton 10 yacatc
the ORDER tor Mr.. Iueersoll;s examinations and
second. that the examination cf Mr.. Ingersol be
proceeded with
ii was then arranged that Mr.. Ingersoll's exami-
nation should commence on Monday nexi.
rlc following Is Judge lnaraham's opinion as
given III the Supreme Court CHAMBERS yesterday
moning:-
In the case Of Foley the Mayor, &C., Justice Barnard
sintain The action taxpayer bshalf o himself and
others who should come m ms plaintiffs. bur did not decide
Of ls6i chapter 400 with question
sent nor should ever he done ON ordinary motions
Questions Of practise unless has eecn passed upon by the
beyond doubt The made by Judge sutherland
Judges similar questions. should . OF
sn Be- sIm On S s on s on p ni
follow the rnrg n the case Of Foley as more directly IN
DECISIONS ' Of s6e Gonr Of Appeals have left this
on motion arising on questions Of practice TO
good csrse action before he complaint served or be-
% S n ns ~ s bs 70 shw maj me
gain! must ai IN his scon because he + unable 70
tor o s & sa sy c ne g % o ssp on re sa on
ssoav,s The question properly 70 be INTO
5 - and s Of he Se n% Ss
twentyhrs rue q ne court Sections ~ ami al relate to
Of adm. proceedings under either elton yss
Intended 10 the discovery OF books
the possession OF the opposite party and section 9i il in
tended prescribe tue mode OF examining party. Inc
General district, neld Bel Richmond. 80
barb, al that such examination could only he had alter
joined the and that decision would control
application unles. the provisions OF the twentyirst rule
This rue presritcs affidavit, which csaiina
ton is appied i,r SHOULD contain. IN case q dis
is sOuEh, - nrcpate his complaint
answer " must dsciose the nature OF the dis-
ike a,uner / n. Object to rrcvs he case after issue
the provisions OF the rule that judges,
framing contemplated both properly included
in section .agz the right OF an examination to frame
Tor either purpose therefore CONCEDED be in
tended framing this rule, and bound by hs pro-
Visions IL made long after the decision 80 Barb
promulgated The remaining question whether the
which conflict with the prevous decisions Of The
Courts. The authority this contained
the act relating the supreme Court sep laws 1919,
M., chap. Us, which provides tor the meeng OF The
sh when be binding upon Of
record they be applicable to the practice
thereof" There be little doubt but that this provision
u sunc ent To give tut over TO make such rule, ana 10
had previously limited ny the
animation Joined After the Code had provided
Tor the examination OF parties before trial u became
matter Of practice 10 regulate the mo and mode Of examns
tOp. The rule under consideration ntenscf for that
aud binding The This application 10
examine the defendant therefore be granted AZ the
questions them tor the
sdcraton GENERAL Term and ns the next General Term
this order proceedings may be had pro-
yded 10 appeals nave the noticed for
term OF the Defendant II ordered
the motion 10 ,s"aie; The pracr. therefore, 10 dee,ed