New-York tribune., 1871-10-12
THE INGERSOLL SUIT.

HAS THE PLAINTIFF ANY STANDING IN COURT
-ARGUMENTS By EX-JUDGE FULLERTON AND
GEN. BARLOW.
The case of VIM. F. Havcmeycr agt. J. II.
Imccrsou up again yesterday before Judge III
graham in the Supreme Court Chambers on the motion
to show cause why order requiring defendant to ap
pear and be examined should not be discharged.
long argument ensucd upon the capacity Of the plaintiff
to maintain this action, the defendant claiming first,
that the plaintiff has Status in court second If he
has, it sufficiently shown; and third his papers
are not sufficient to bring defendant into court and be
examined even II his right to bring the action be ad
mited The case finally adjourned till to-day at II
O'Clock when it is expected the argument will be con-
Cluded. Yesterdays proceedings were as follows
Ex-Judge FullertOn-H your Honor peases, in order
that we may be entirely regular upon this motion TO
vacate order requiring Mr. Ingerso to appear and
examined and make discovery we desire to have an
order to show cause to that effect, and hand to your
Judge Ingraha1n-I declined to give you that
order. :, ....o,,o ,,.o
diately, so that there will he no delay
Judge Ingraham-I told you before that would hear
that is the proper practice An order 70 snow cause Is
BxJudge Fullerton-I don't see that tembarrasses the
proceeding any way, but rather facilitates it, We
want an opportunity to appeal and perhaps the o'her
Judge InGraham-If you want to put it in that form
for the purpose OF appeal you may consder tne orue
EX,Judgc FullertOn-That is satisfactory. We then
bring on this motion to show why the order re-
qurng Ingersll TO come forward and make discovery
Mr. Barlow then read the affidavit of George c.
Barrett. which is as follows: -
NTvYoRK SrPREHE CorRT-Hu. D. Hartmeyer, 1hsen DE-,
OCT sr IncSr.oH aHd Oi4. c and Coun,y q Ns York s
ss, SSeS S t. By SI p,8 Ghi @ Bs Law. q
are sSt3tS 5SSaes so[ ;do9 p; M1:i
sdne officer .ld Board and by the second section thereof
Ss Sn.acc @ or o '%s IT'S at 1'S1 %s, yd 's ff 1870 and the po
ton aoOo the public OoTss o. ~ ' sHDr & S 9OSns the e
and woi upon and New County CoprtHoqse took
pe the mouth Of Jolly WI dtPODe1t Is PioI%Sa INC sRo @
.ss Rs SitI'1 he 1of' c said Board
scs hsP s Ss 1870 vas eIprs.. pro
aS ys t d. % p.s. ., as ct should .uG BY tie
sT T.d dG noS S1 Pd:a Ss s bs%ea S Pu o
.ac claims paid upon the certificate Of such three officials
r G'' to ''1i5 s; S s::i'e :feS'i @
o Of such alleged so: s GE Ss July vSs,.ts1 Of 9s P;sa
teen doe 81 the City County d ia Oel Departments
to Dse s % sS ,T sd 4s to s s.e. 70
sue: . sID' Ss that d., IN the sa5 F, Of IS IS
c Jointly With committee of Of ',o sPs,,So; S
throah par Of to- FORMAL 81 4EsasaCn W a S ss O
tLeJ applied said SUPERVISOR as deponeDt u informed
.:d '%S r. ana the plRGsssGue. eRsseGn Of .S Board
sopec for tm@ OF Sstr & .pcaion as deponept Similarly
violently opposed and long and .PeeoS. paper esa
:iPcs IsRSEd and S Citizen CG%
sd 'uh power has thus practically been refused 10 Ss al
sworn ~ ttfort me- 10Th day Of sl j. CAHIL, Com
missioner Of DoedA
Ex-JUDGE FULLERToN's ARGUMENT.
suppose that the and learned counsel on the
other side do pretend that their client has stand
ing in this court by virtue Of the act Of 1864 to which
sba In the first instance refer, and claim that 1t is
constitutional and void and therefore gives no right to
the plaintiff prosecute this action If this proposition
be maintained matter Of couree 1t lie the end OF this
proceedipR because whatever frauds may have been
ffado he County
pose the learned gentlemen are TO seek redress D proper
means and by laws tDat are % aaienoD 70 The
third section Oi chap 40S Laws OF 1884, 10 9e Io1no On
the act prove be proposition that the nature OF the
third section is not contained III that tte ana IoI at
SScS nj call attention ia section s Of article that
no private local bill passed by the Legislature shall
aced n Se the c 0 NoS The subject here is not
braCed in the title nor Is II referred to in any way
this action discussed think, In the Foley lnjuDc
Gen. Barlow-Yes Sir, II was decided after solemn
RuInent that the plaintiff had the right.
Ex.Judge Barrett-Mr O'GOrman, who was on the
Se IN d@t abS Judge 80 de
he Eos Of @PSps ss pS s hold the act
E9JudSe TuiIertCn-T6is question Sir has been dis
posed Of u this very Court
E1JSSSss tbnE our no asVO the Court
,nsy recoiect the Of Christopher Pullman who com
az az se Of
Fernando Wood Of premises ip SasSan-st In that case
SnnIon suSts ming the views we advocate here Tine
cpunsa here read from Judge Sutherlands opinion In
support Of his argument. and said We hold tnSt tnS
RTJndee Barreft-That question was fully argued
nToper form and as TO whether Judge Sutherland had
not overlooked the decisions Of the Court m Appeals
Rnd- ,.,- =, 49,,
EI,Judes Fullerton-My friend is talking now de hors
the recordthere nothing " show for but tne Dream
OF the Judge. .,
EIJuGge Barrett-That the with the gentleman
himself.
ExJndge Fullerton-The gentleman is mistaken. The
opinion frOm which l read IA signed by the county
Clerk
Mr. stoughton-we win hear you IN regard 10 This.
Ex-Judge EullsTtvn-This question be Inet now