The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-11-18
FIsK-STOKES-MANSPIELD
Hctisa 70 Change Place Of Trial and 10 Net
Aside stay Of Proceedings.
Arxunent in the Supreme Court Chanbers-A APP
peal from the Action Of Judge Psatt-Fhese
Letters stin Kept in the Background.

sppresne Court the Chambers In which room the
yudge n st present holding court, was crowded by
IN eager and expectant assemolagc. The eupposi-
sson was-and, It h needless to say, OF course, q
srong abiding hope aiso-that the letters and am
aavits connected with the case regarding winch
sach strongly persistent and successful efforts nave
been made hitherto to keep from the public know
ledge would be unearthed and spread out in all
their responsiveness. But sucn expectancy and hope
were not gratlned. The proceedings, In fact, were
Of the dullest character imaginable. though invov
ing certainly important legal principles There was
not even the enltvening presence or either OF the
contestants give eclat tho OCCASION and those
who expected to see Mrs. Mansfield, the helen OF
this legal warfare in court were grievoosy d'sap-
poin,cd the case came up ON motion 20 sho"
cause why the stay proceedings granted by Judge
Pratt pending the appeal from his order removing
ne cause, should not be set ASIDE.
ARauaBNr OF COUNSEL
MI SHEPARD read = brief afiidavlt showing that
when the order staying proceedings was moOted
shey had stated they would rather argue The Ques-
uon ON the merits than nave this stay granted. The
consequence was that they were restrained, unless
shis stay were set aside, from doing anything He
wrought Court had full power to SCI aside this
stay OF proceedings
Mr.. BEACH said the authority cited BY the coun,
sel applies only to the where motion Is made
o. any decision which justines an application to
same facts without any new allegations an order
made upon . ntigated motion, and the hearing OF
N Ss sns
10 show cause why 1t should not pc continued re-
turnahie on future day, giving the opposite party
when We appeared on the return day or the order
We were met by motion on the part OF the defend.
ans for change or the place OF t1a. and by the ar
fAngement Of counsel with the appreciation Of the
Judge. the hearing OF
vas adjourned to subsequent day, and upon that
occasion the motion TO change the place OF trial
ssspens;on cf that declsion, The Judge TOOK the the
papers and the argument for the continuance vi the
Pa M an dave a
81 the ORDER or rather for the argument why the
junction should not be continued. He said he was
inclined 70 ind the motion for change OF venue tu
hardly necessary 10 argue the other MOTION before
settlement Of the order l lnsisted lnat, as We in
tended 70 appeal 1t seemed TO be desirable that all
NAN QUESTION SHOULD BE SUSPENDED
nntn the proper venue was determined. have no
g a. 70 NJ C ~ S5ass
the afndsvits either side used on that motion.
HIS ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS
and wlu be reversed. 1t was not an appeal to his
discretion for the convenience OF witnesses, but .
the code requiring an action TO be brought
where some one or the parties resides We pro-
parties lived In Brooklyn. the clearest evidence
saat ne was substantial party, and made u party
New YorK was the place where the principal con-
troveTsy arose and where the witnesses resided and
was the proper locality for Its trial. II WAS IN vain
suggested that this was q question not arising on
ihe motion but TO be presented subsequent 70 the
formation OF issues In the suit. have advised an
appeal An appeal has been taken, and the question
that appeal was argued by the learned gentleman
Dltatng In Coordinate branch OF this court makes
the order staying the proceedings condition upon
rs part Of the order upon Contested MOTION.
NOW, your Honor please, n the prActicc s to be
Branches, that the order made by this Court with
full JurisdctiOnup0n contest and the full hearing
Observation-Disclosures to Be- reviewed ana vacated I by
coordinate branch without any new facts or new
delegations justlying such en- appeal it IS practice
seem 10 me professional entitled 10 judicial appr0
bation. Your Honor asked TO ST. here in the charsc
GER Of an appellate tribunal passing upon the same
facls which Judge Pratt passed upon, without any
apology for renewal or the application without any
Hew DEVELOPMENTS calling for change Of the order,
without any new necessities calling for 0 now
action. 1t is simply an appeal from decision Of
pracce Will not be induged. and think It viii be
difficult to produce any reported authority however
much the practice may have prevailed N some de.
practice Your Honor VIII pardon me for saying
mar happen 70 be ENGAGED lnst a. tins moment 10
any further discussion 10 TO be had desire an ad-
l0urnment.
Judge BRApY-was not the effect of
THE ORDER MADE BY JUDGE PRATT
10 transfer that cause Immediately to this dstrct2
Nj. BHAcn-lt would nave been unless the order
staying proceedings was simultaneous with the
nrder changing the place OF trial. which Is part OF
Judge BRADY asked In which department, the ap.
peal had been noticed.
Mr.. BEACH said he believed IN the Kings County
Department but II that 'practlcen was wrong there
Was time stu W correct IL
Judge BRADY have very strong disposition TO
mold thai the supreme Court OF THIS district has
TIE RIGHT TO CONTROL
t@ own business. IL h o very serious matter, r
Judge Prati, upon due delbcraiion, application
having been made therefor, determined that that
stay should be made and should continue IL IS very
questionable II l. slltlng mere IN Speclai ferm have
SDe power 10 vacate mat order. But have very
strong disposition connne the control Of In
sAls district TO the Judges in this district With all
been more appropriate Tor him to have let that
question remain ia this district
ths business TO the Judges OF this district l
hope your Honor VIII not suppose Tor one
appeal 10 withdraw from the consideration OF the
General Term OF THIS district the prOpriety or tins
srder, stated 70 Your Honor tnat y is an entire
cur notice OF appeal from that order for this district.
would greatly prefer II, and we VIII do 80 within
proceedings would rather have proceeded with the
MOTION UPON TIE INJUNCTION.
MI. Shepard nov states 10 the Court what ne did
not state in bis afdavit that We had once accepted
that ofcr. ] was there ready 70 argue the motion
for continuance OF the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. 10
argue II, and without any VANITY can profess the
conviction that maintain the proprieiy OF the
injunction, In the material parts or II, before any
Court any Judge In regard 70 some OF Its general
provlslODs which more directly ancct the
DEFENDANT MASSFIELD,
have conceded snch notifications OF the injunc-
ton to MIR. Courtney AS Will enable him 70 see any
papers, letters or documents which she may have
relating 10 litigation pending between ner and
MI FISK. There rs no desire TO restrain the proper
nse OF any letters or documents.
Judge BRADY know nothing or this case ex-
cept what nave seen IN ARTICLES IN the news
papers.
restrain ne publication. unaufh orHed and IN
meriforons oi
PRIVATE LETTERS PASSING FRo4 FISK
10 Mrs. Mansfield; an1 upoL the foot OF agree.
inent precedent 10 the submission OF matters be-
tween Stokes and FISK 10 the arbitration OF Mr.
Clarence A. seward, We also asked TO restrain The
pub,lcaiion oi Nrs Mamsield's affidavit, which,
undof thal Agreement. WAS u be CANCELLED and