New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-10
The only resom.

t,aal,fI 4 Z,
blanee when ~. s'Ct faf both suits brought TO re-
eCn &c" e seCiss Of relief in relation 20 dviaen rot
me ne tsres rendered were not tho same ~ s
mood of relief ia the one action Nes i,t an the
rom NAV sn was intricate and embarrassing WIFE WIFE
The Pck complaint was clear and simo, o ~ answer
mon G,incd e5 tTcrsred by clerks The dceqd Dcb
attorneys, and required no fley might
a. l"t tot%S a. long as would have ~ belone- |
Snired 70 copy ont an answer Mi Mo hothin odeu
mi in modem times have been Of te yst a LAWYERS
dom consisted mainly m E[' Se Ieth Of his rleadmgs
will undertake to make any , srrh as Is i'm every
IoboT Of drawing MP formal aiday, a ,cf En- an action
hl U.s. u re labor of drawing an ai.s" t in mis-
Tor which there has never etl a xence of the in
stStf; t,,S ,nj ard Lane suit and TINS mas nee ~
imputed to the COMPANY as I IL is perfectly oh
resP0nSaty s was stated in The aajaNlt; sotlG Ior
the purpose Of SloTa1 Which was asked, and that there
PrJu1iCeo ~ U for urgency upon the part OF inc ue
fe4dinII SSl next asserts that the Company maze
motion on DAYS @ & osiIe te notice of trial
and that the m3 C with saving that this entirely in
we con- ma tbat JUDGE Roseu3ns had before nm WIel
correct ' ~, statement the most positive evidence that
he maze trSSi aud mad no foundation whatever. And
twaS forccf statement the only foundation for
Nv Information OF the Courts at the close oI MS
ms Tie james Thompson salt was terminated by
~, asnment 10 another person, IN consideration OF
Zoo paid the plaintiff by MT Could Inns aNinth ~
Jndge RoSekTaus insists must have beeh lnaue ny we
800 Railway Company, although there was NOT lne
evidence before him tending 10 snow htl SCu
was the fact, while there was the most utct cNcve
from person having knowledge OF inc Suhlcct, at
,uch was not the case. This again, however was MOI
material If proved; Tor II were true tli the EG
Hallway Company had purchased the claim 1t would
have been q more economical disposition OF the case
an 10 employ special counsel TO 20 to saratoga ana Try
the cause three days n0uce, ana aerWaid 70 aIgue
whichever party succeeded, not TO mention the rsk OF
going 10 trial without any preparation at time when
about the 20 attend the trial. But, Notwithstanding
III this, the Company did not pay the claim ana has MOI
suJ G tTor arl7,Inert In favor of reTuirng com
Ia'I aotSa 'loi. "a i i,t 80 ~ ls t since tIa
President Of the Company has direct interest OH the
ComIns down . the suit Of Thompson, De Forest ana
Btler which is tlc one now before the Court judge lose
krans inds iaut WIN TIE deiendaht eousi lU4 optl
ing extension OF time 10 answer upo aiG rs IlaGe
been competent to understand uG ISSUES WI le eae' a.
criticism showed that Nj. Ensign counselor Of the
SuurcWc Count lie IIther O'JtclS thtt lhee iHN.s
alleged tIat the defendant counsel had not had tine 10
sVcT bile at tie same time Que Of the DEFENDANTS OIL
made aidaNit Oi merits, which could not have
What IS hcrc in tits critic,mi OF course every hWyer
Il comes DE Office and is able 20 form opinion as
lis claims; Lui IT. on such an cxamua ion, lc were to
undertake. 20 prepare an answer, he would deserve never
again t. have client.
Judge R,sobrtus next fuds fault with the motion made
e. strike certain parts OF ne complaint in this suit.
He expressly admits That the order srdne ont part Of
the complaint "" proper ois bl.' he ',-sets' tA,t we
legations Thus stricken ont hurt NO one, ana Tat
" Oh" defendant coul not possibly nave been preudctu
~ tlcr remaining lu tht colliihi, ne, 'HeIcleit,
thiiks that tac motion 10 sIAc ont was made purely
Rosclrlns had other papers before him than those
which were used before Judge ingalls,, who made the
w. cr, f ON bot sjes vi me 5nGgs VIII" id NOT
hear any Argument IN effect condemns the action of tine
Judge who did; Tor il ths motion made in had
possibly prejudice he DEFENDANT it was the clear duty
Of tie JUDGE who heard the motion TO deny 1t altogether
The iaci was and i was so shown upon ,he argamenf
before Judge Ingalls, t1t one Of those allegations had
boon. in former action, brought by part 81 te same
p4inhs made the lIeieAt IOr swearing 70 nan dO@eh
rs material end necessary for The purpose OF
these Utncsse mat the panjiH5 were able 20 ouini
br the witnesses proved 90 be necessary on the pare or
Place trial Many other reasons adduced before
Judge Ineas 20 -ho" amt tins clause ana tAe o'ler
cfi@n we rCpe tSas,erton that tins motion was MADE
10 gu time. as an unjust and unfOunded aspcrson II
was MADE orr own responsibility, vi hOu consulting
sutly viudcat nv the decision of Judge whose rcIu
tar6u stand, high for any assaults upon II 10 ne
jude R3- raus again falls into an error Of fact in re
viewing tHe appeal from so much OF Jung ingalls, oIOei
pslt Iir SANS tAlt ,ns part of order affirm
This being the same Court IN Wlc hc 'Ssul,l LOOK
place lue Judges Who now hear MS know very wen tdt
iillt,d ~ ., 70 va, ~ 49, - ,,l.i ~ ,,e
peuae, aud stated IA open court that ihey would prefer
any d-c.l.h I%.l.t IMAM q l4hE d,ias: Ana =, hDG
decision ui several Gays after thc close OF te aIgi-
meut and upon ne very last day OF the term II Is fair
COINS. bod tc com 10 dispose OF the cas- pIonpty:
md tnis very cIcum-. a.tt-Wlch should Afford the
strongest tyGtaca OF the defendants desire 10 bring the
cas- 10 .s,ue-. IS Inldc q uo,y ground OF crusme.
IN DOB. review %. the evidence by which he considers
ttte uTs' defence is shown ~ be sham the judge in
.se in uufeuuded assumptions OF fact IN several in
pa,y Tor Oct, i-GJ item of $4,000 Tor loss Oh Lake
Ert stcar.l-. 1-, without any evidence he ASSUMES
- go l loss ON lit purchase ui lilLr
:, s7ch J.ar--. -. l-ci h-.nr That y Vas neither So
!, asserts a-il ga, J-Jse IuIaiAn had dccl6d mat
L. 90 i -t oI mortgage debt, and Of rents OF
railroads ItD boo 1909, over the ike amount paid in 1882,
V, ot cha. Ui, rs -,,i-t e preferred stockholders,
,,i, = i.'-- . more I'paplc Jnan that Juige lngTa-
.,lf ie ,r.l al luese points So again he says
Investigate the Grs of Tic Company and dd ascertain
tu,. .dlt is ia. faei.t Asalu, he says that tine
E,r! on Dr... u lci oe publication II the notice
tf tg IdeuG" OF tls also there was particle
q e,idcnU, ..r is 90 tl.r fact
TIE oIocr naa- m ,h.s case, 50 tar as II requires
I.,at oi books, aa papers is in direct opposition
Jo .1.yl.Ia dc sion of tis General Torn, WHICH was
licr. under .lt notice az Tie Judge, but which docs
not appear t1 n,,c made any impression upon nm II
Is NOT necessary 20 discuss I1is subject further here,
Tie attention OF Lc Gcuera Term invited. 1t consists
Of general insure Oi Tire Coui,s aad J1dg. OF the
cism confined 70 portion o. the Courts but 1t j., in
Language Tor having given cOunteuduCe 70 novel and
mUnsrous GOcrnef ioI having refused 10 do thor duy
1Oi the lclcI hcIltla ltiaUO, lOi
issued orders 10 stag proceedings and order OF uiuc
ton, which arc nupl'uF condemned az wicked ma thccN
IRENE and ior having brought "a deep and abiding
proach on the administration Of justice" Among the
judges WHO are thus aH-rly condemned are Judges
Iu-Iauam sutherland, C.crae, Ingalls,, Balloon, Miller
Parker IOucr, anna Learned, these judges having
granted inlly ni1eient4s OF the orders which are
Thought InOAstIOg,. At viii not DO to say
that 1t wac meant simply b condemn the action VI
counsel m applying Tor these orders. Iu
the pcUrsti0u OF his opinion the
Judge dlop hs aftacks upon counsel bestows the
seYeest ocnsurc upon his brethren Of the Judiciary
Cludiug WitL aCHOEtOu 10 the C1Hrts OF the whole
bt''c, that 1T is high time that they should return