New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-12-22
TIE "GRATZES" ONCE MORE.
ANOTHER CHAPTER OF REFEREE TRICK.
cry.

AlluSl0n was nduc III lie RIBCNE OIL OcC'
10 to fresh Instances Of referee which are daily
coming 70 light. few Of these collected in detail by
the Bar Association for at Albany are suboined to
substauate that statement, and further illustrate the
evils Of the referee system.
In May 1871 pending in the Superior Court was
referred by Judge McCunn to James Morgan and was
closed and summed up Oct H. few days later the ref
desired the plaintiffs attorney to draw the report
for h stating that he had decided In his favor and In
view OF the testimony could not decide otherwise Sub
sequcny he told the plaintiffs husband the same thing,
and requested the payment of $eo his fees He called
several times tho office Of plaintiffs attorney, and
asked for bis fees reeratng his FORMER statement that
the question involved purely one OF fact, and that
he could decide otherwise than In favor OF plaintiff
and that he had reported strongly for plaintiff Not
being able to collect his fees In consequence OF the pccu-
MARY disability of the plaintiff, he drew report, six
weeks later In favor Of the defendant claiming s25 fees
Plaintiffs attorney served soon after with notice
OF taxation OF COSTS which included the referees fees.
He thereupon moved to set aside the order 0f reference
which carried with It the referees report Upon that
motion the referee himself made oath tt he had never
received and never expected 10 receive the SIPS which
appeared by the notice Of taxation previously served To
have been paid. Whether the change thus made In the
report the result Of collision between drfenlints
counsel and the referee Is question for inycsigton
but that Crate" Morgan made the change to his
Some further facts In relation to "traiz" Morgan
shown by the papers the OF Pike ID others
against Gernshym, Fine Morgan IA til Common
Pleas, have very suspicious aspect IL appears
the records In this that time IN 1865 action
begun by Mars against Ldlow for the recovery ot
ls barrels Of spirits alleged to have been fr&uulenty
obtained By the latter Subsequently, Gornsbym begun
two actions In the Superior Court against Mars vendor
OF portion OF these goods against Rufus suits ~
vendor OF another poron and against the plaintiffs
herein Pike and others, who claimed tac goods
chasersi from Mars & suits Gernshym- counsel in
both these actions wero Fine d. Morgan who werS
then associated in business; and temporary Inun, tons
obtained In both, restraining defendant Mar, from
proceeding with his suit. and the plaintiff IKE ani
Others from taking any steps IT, IF the
goods which they had purchased from Mars n salts.
The afdayither charge that in September iss.
agreement in writing made between PIX, COUPE
and Fine MOI gan that In consideration - the pay
nent by Pike OF 500 the latter sbO.d rec lie 'c ood-.
and that the two actions begun by Gcr-Lym sIonI 10
disc continued and The inuncons removed. Tat .hcck
for 500 was thercupon sent TO Fine Il NorSan, ami
handed to GernShym, who took It to Morgan in another
ROOM where it indor> led by the latter THAI after
waiting timo in vain for Gernshyms reappcaI.
ance the messenger went to the bank hirh the ch
drawn, where he informed that the check has.
been already certified That Pixies counsel being III
formed OF these facts went to Fine Il Horyan- office.
aud. finding Morgan and Gernshym out sent to Pixies
store inform rho III o the Transaction ard stop Trn'
That. after waiting few minutes, he went ont and.
meeting Morgan AMI Gernshym on TIE street. ID
cd the affair TO them swinde and SUI
-eduenly. taking it'll him Mr.. Kidd. ~ the PLAN
tins. returned to Morgans Office, and demanded t!r
cheek the goods and thar the Of tn "l"'s
wa, refl,s, d. GeInshym stating that IL had lOt tho
the check from a friend AMI Morgan stating
hat ham lad been dDue If Pike the Loos. That
Morgan called plaintiff. for said sl;1 he kncw
that the rools had been removed and sold by
| Gern,hym TO kochler Bros, on the rcprc>eBt.-
ton Of Fine that said Dlunctions had been removed
That Fine had negotiated the sale personally and
ceived the money Kohlor Bros., when he check
was obtained in organs Office; and that Fin and
N"rEan both knew these facts. That GcIn-hym Gos
possession Of the check by representing t.t le w.,n,I
get il certified: and that he pr, cnGcd 10 leave
Moisau, Office for that purpose. That 1t nd been pre-
yous agreed J" tween Morgan and Pixies counsel that
the check should hr held by Elmo and Moran, ,Sc,,,
until the goods We're delivered; and that the check
Delivered to Gernshym for the alleged purpose Of
eaton through the counsel and advice OF Mo"m. Uron
th'sc afiayito order III arrest issued aclip-
Gernshym. Morgan aud Fine being merely included IA
the action defendants. Thcr answer lisa general
denial" Tie ease is now on the day calendar II tho
Common Pleas for trial
One of the ways whereby the "Grityo," strce.d ~
extorting exorhitant ilcg, fees from rel ton par
ties already charged and will De ,pv,t by rho
Committee on Extortions Of the Bar \ .so ition,
shown by the action Of "Gratz" Coleman in II
ferred to him year two since. He had cvinccd q
disposition throughout the trial to favor the defendant,
but the plaintiff at the close. in support of his clan
produced such evidence referee would have dared
10 disregard, and In consequence, Coleman informed
plaintiffs counsel that he should report In his favor.
As not more than 20 actual meetings had
been held, the legal fees could not ha,n
exceeded 500 The Referees claim however IL mucn
larger, and the counsel agreed to allow him $3.50
this amount too Insignificant for the consider
atiOno Of n ~ ed iua
time and the plaintiff in order to secure his report,
finally paid the $500 The Bar Associations Committee
charaoterze this very properly ext"r,lon possible
only under such abused system OF ref
New-York.
The following fully sustaDs the crcIcs Of TYR
TRIBUNE particularly in regard TO the practice u ct
ring not referabe by law An action began In
June in the Superior Court by Consc and De Camp
agt. B. H. Bixby Justice Of the WITH District Po'i'o
Court F. NJ Bixby, his brother, and another In May.
1862 DEFENDANTS attorneys moved reference before
Judge McCunn, which opposed on tho ground that
the case was not referabe the issues showing that
examination Of any account was necessary, and that
the only question as TO the liability OF al! the de-
PENDANTS. Judge McCunn, however, referred il
"Gratz Morgan. In August. 1862 Morgan gave notice
to plaintiffs attorneys that he had reported in their
favor and seut statement OF the amount OF his fees.
They sgnihed their readiness to pay the and
day or two by Morgan, who shortly aiterward
reported In favor OF defendants The plaintiffs then
newed their action for similar having added
another person ~ defendanO In the Supreme Court.
Again motion for reference madc and although
it strenuousy opposed as in the other the
ground that tho not referable under
statutes and plaintiffs desired that, referred ALL
should be referred to Of 30 or 70 prominent lawyers
whose names presented to the Court Judge Cardolo
4 Z IN n friend NJ ia MA