The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-03
YORK HERALD SATURDAY AUGUST

Mr.. Stickney objected to the question, and Mr.
shares Illegally subscribed for; that the books
sho ving this TACT were stolen by the Ramsey
LODGED IN GRAVEYARD
The Chair put the question to the Court whether
the objection should be sustained, and 1t was de-
cided In the aflrmative-19 to IA.
Mr. Beach then onered to prove that the board OF
Sateiy proceeded to vote $780, to Ramsey With
ont any just consideration.
Mr. stlckney objected, and the objection was sus-
Mr. Beach then said he did not think he ought to
trouble the Court with any further efforts in this
direction.
witnessef what he had testified TO was from his
personal knowledge. Witness said IL was.
JOHN H.. CONFER
was sworn-He was for long time. private secre-
tary TO James Fisk JE; witness then stated the
Gould to o child OF Judge Barnard; Fisk told wit
ness he wanted to make present OF piece OF
him such a present would not be appropriate. and
that II ! was going to make such present !
w s" MAKE MAKE deposit IN 'n and Uahf let the
child have it when it became OF age;
also proposed that letter be written to MRS;
Barnard stating the fact, and also statement OF
the fact when the money should be paid to the
child; or In case of the child's death the money
was attached to the bank book: witness read the
letter to Mrs. Barnard, which was Il simple state
ment OF the presentation; witness said that TO his
present; Gould has never repaid me; Fisk may have
Counsel for the prosecution said they had no
questions to ask, except as TO how many times ne
had seen Barnard in the Erie Offices, and he said
not over half dozen times
JOHN II. FELLOWS
was sworn and testified that he had been employed
by SteinEart to secure q temporary injunction
on the fixtures of Irving Hail. he stated that he
applied to, but at first was not inclined to make
the application; but General Funk, friend OF his
urged him to attend to 1t, and he did so; he be-
came satisfied that the injunction was impera-
lively demanded and he went to Judge Barnard;
the Judge was disnclined to take up the matter,
saying he had already declined In the same case;
explained the case TO him, and showed that it was
saw Judge Barnard before nor since; there was no
allusion made to my personal influence with Judge
beyond that which have with other judges had
1 no reason to think had any more influence with
MN tnaa any other gentleman n OF inc oap v
the Judge since 1868; made other and additional
statements Desides those which appeared in the
papers, think; cannot say what unless II was the
statement OF the connection OF General Funk with
the property; nave met Judge Barnard at various
places at DeimonicO's, at j. Mob. DavidsOns, here
in Saratoga; have no recollection of unching with
him have never met him at Fisk's
To Mr.. Beach-Delmonco's is near the Court
| House, and most OF the lawyers lunched there.
Walter $. Church, sworn-Was connected with
THE ALBANY AND sUsoUEHANNA RAILROAD
as a stakeholder; was applied to by members of
! the Board to cooperate with them in changing
directors; advanced money to purchase stock
with a view to effect that change.
Mr.. Stickney objected to going into the circum-
stances Of the litigation in this case and the Court
sustained the objection by vote OF - to 10.
Mr.. Beach said he was embarrassed by these
votes, to know what was their effect. IT, as sug-
gested by Chief Justice Church, the Court thinks
sufficient evidence has not been taken to establish
conspiracy then he would be satisfied and could
understand the position of the Court.
Chief Justice Church explained his position and
! evidence had been taken tending to show con
spracy, the evidence was nlmaterial. He said as
to the respondent he had right 10 act upon the
| papers, and IL he acted properly, why then that
ended the matter so lar as he was concerned. We
have the papers here, and that question be de.
cided upon them. The Chief Justice also said that
the Judge issuing an order had no right to take
into consideration the effect OF his order.
! ent, showed the embarrassment the respondent
labored under, as he did not know how much
weight would be laid on the evidence already put
on the charge Of conspiracy.
| Judge Church asked how the respondent could
show by witnesses better than by the papers them
selves that there no onspiracy-admitting
that there was evidence tending to show conspi-
Mr. Reynolds responded that he scarcely knew
what evidence they would present beyond the fact
that the respondent would give evidence tending
THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY.
Chief Justice Church reiterated his position that
the allegations as contained in the applications for
the orders made to Judge Barnard, were to he
taken as true; and he asked, as the respondent
Sa s in hs behalf 81 ro Ts ore coud
Mr.. Beach asked this question, assuming that
these allegations are true, How will it be IT, in the
opinion OF some or the members or the court, suf-
fcient evidence is received to show that there
conspiracy What will become Of the allegations
understood.
Judge Pratt, OF the counsel on behalf OF the
| prosecution stated what they had proved or at
tempted to prove, and were willing TO admit re-
buttng testimony; but they would object TO going
into the merits or dement's Of these several cases
So far as the allegations IN these applications we've
concerned and the orders issued upon them, the
prosecution would claim and insist that he had
wrongfully issued those orders. The prosecution
| rested their upon the papers. If thew were
regular, and Judge barnard was justified in issuing
| the orders. why, then he will go free. But we
claim, said the Judge, that
RE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED
Alter further discussion, Mr.. Beach said he would
ask witness another question, and asked him If he
was acquainted with the litigation concerning the
Susquehanna Railroad, and he said he was. He
what was the opinion they expressed to him con-
| corning the action of his portion OF his side.
! This was objected to, and the objection was over
ruled-A9 TO Is.
Witness said it was uniformly conceded that we
were right, and that the orders asked for
proper. Witness then detailed the proceedings at
! tendant upon the double election for directors and
the disturbances resulting therefrom; did not know
tween our party and Judge Barnard
Cross-examined by Mr. Stickncy.
| There was general meeting OF persons inter-
ested in the road at llafpast eleven O'Clock; the
stockholders meeting was held afterwards about
! twelve O'Clock; Fisk came there about half-past
eleven O'Clock: our side had talked of this general
meeting at various places prior TO Its being held;
the question OF enjOnng the inspectors was dis
cuSSed at the Deevan House the night before the
elections; think Fisk present; it Is possible the
resolutions adopted at the stockholders meeting
were drawn up at that meeting IL was stated that
q number OF stockholders were expected up the
next day from New York.
JUDGE WILLIAM I. FULLERTON
affirmed and testified that he WAS counsel for Fisk
and Earl against Heath and Raphael. He exam
ined the complaint.
Mr.. Parsons objected to taking the opinion OF this
witness on the su1iciency OF the papers before
Judge Barnard, holding that 1t was for the Court
to decide. He wanted ruling by the Court.
Mr. "a hat Ctinn had haov, rttia.
upon aud this kind OF evidence had been uniformly
received. He said It the practice OF Judges
not to thoroughly examine, read over, and study
papers presented TO them, but rather TO hear the
statements OF counsel, and judging from their cap
acity and reputation act upon the application.
The Chair put the question to the Court whether
the objection should be sustained, and il was de-
cided ~ the afirmative--l6 to 10.
witness was then dismissed