The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-25
once for cerrincation; he never recovered d
stock back again.

once for certincation; he never recovered nd
CLOSE OF THE ERIE CASES.
Counsel for the prosecution here announced that,
as far as the Erie cases were concerned, the case
Arthur Johns was called and sworn Was a law
Court reporter and lawyer; know Judge Barnard
by sight very well have reported In his Court since
Mr. Beach objected to the testimony Of this wit
ness, which was upon the third specification Of
s ay&, 81, which charged Judge barnard with
referee, that no man need offer that PERSONS name
TO him as referee; that he had lied about him and
friends ana not his enemies. Counsel said this
charge was not OF sufficient importance for
He 1e,or before t HSart ct
that Judges were not all In the habit OF using the
mos most reined and genteel language, and claimed
that sucn an onence was not proper subject for
inquiry. Counsel pursued the theme in this view
at some length. He also cited a number OF cases
in England, In ancient times, OF q most ridiculous
character, and claimed that such system did not
prevail In this country. He also cited large num-
Der OF opinions of some OF the ablest urists and
statesmen OF this country defining what were i'm
peachable offences, and which was not OF the frtvO-
lous character of this one. Counsel spoke at much
length.
Mr.. Van Colt responded. He said that this was
not IN truth question OF manners. Judge Bar
nard had declared that he would not appoint Judge
- Clerke referee because ne said that gentleman
had lied about him and was his enemy; that hs
friends and not his enemies received favors from
him (Barnard). The question here was, then,
whether the Judge had not been guilty of gross
misconduct In thus declaring ttat his friends and
not his enemies were to be rewarded with favors
from him. This was the charge here; not whether
he was guilty OF
COARSE AND UNGENTEEL LANGUAGE.
Mr. Beach replied, maintaining that the offence
was not an Improbable one. He also claimed that
in reality the Judge was right in declaring that in
the selection OF referee an agent to represent
the Court, he would select friend and not an
enemy-nOt man who had lied about him. He
said that It was the duty OF the Judge not only to
make such selection, but to give his reason
therefor IL was indeed highly credftable to the
Judge to declare that no man who had lied about
him, who had slandered him, should act rs his
agent, as his delegate, as his representative.
The Court, then, on motion OF Judge FOlger, went
into private consultation on the question:
On the reopenng OF the doors the Chair an
nounced that the Court had embodied the decision
In the following resolution
Resolved THAT the objection overruled, but without
passing at his time on the question whether a Judicial
officer may be mpeached for any act other than one
THE EATON AFFAIR.
Arthur Johns resumed the stand and testified to
hearing Judge Barnard the language above
stated about Judge Cerke lying about him (3ar-
nard) witness, referring to tile assault upon Mr..
ration, said Judge Barnard, while on the bench,
said :-"My enemies are unfortunate; one has
dropped dead and the other has succeeded in
getting himself hit on the head, and was
reported that Eaton was hit on the head with
sand bags; Eaton appeared In the case of Ramsey
against Jay Gould and others; it was some little
time after the proceeding before Judge Barnard
when the assault occurred; Eaton was counsel
against Could; witness knew II. J. Raymond editor
Times bad been very hostile to Barnard and the
Erie management
The Court then adjourned till tomorrow, at ten
O'Clock A. NJ.