New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-04-05
THE JUDICIARY INVESTIGATION

TERENCE FARLEY ExPLAINs-JUDGE MCUNN's
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AS RECEIVERS
QUESTIONABLE OPERATIONS.
The Judiciary Committee resumed its inves-
tigation yesterday, at the Fifth Avenue Hotel the
charges against Judge Cardozo occupying morning
session. Terence Farley. being called to explain the
singular coincidence between his drawing check for
the of February, 1870 and the depositng Of
like amount by Cardozo the 23d testified that $4oo
OF drawn by him paid to his labofers and
the remainder present to his father and that
Judge Cardozo had interest whatever In the check
letter was received from James e. McVeaney exon
Grating Judge CardOzo from any charges OF improper
action in the of McVeaney agt Culldn.
In the afternoon the charges against Judge McCunn
were taken up. The first case examined was that OF
Clark agt Binnger in which Judge McCunn, in Novem-
ber 1862 appointed as receiver of the copartnership
nroperty of Binneer & Coz Wholesale liquor dealers,
Daniel H. Hanrahan, Of the firm OF Morgan
& Uanrahan successors to the law practice OF
Judge McCunn, Morgan being also McCuhh
brother-in-law. Tho case attracted much at'e'-
ton at the time by of the conflict between
the Superior and the U. g. District Court over
questions between receiver and assignee In bank
ruptcy 1t is claimed that the property squandered
and that neither OF parties to the suit and none OF
the creditors ever received any practical benefit from it.
1t is also charged that Judge McCunn in the orders ana
proceedings before him, guilty OF arbitrary, Illegal
and corrupt conduct.
Geo n Titus counsel Of Binnger, testified In relation
TO the correctness of certain copies of papers, and that
the property wasted in the hands OF the receiver
Abraham Blninger sr related the occurrences attend
ing the seizure of the by the receiver and re-
heated conversations with the latter in which he was
given to understand that the receiver was really part
ner Of the Judge, aud man OF great influence ana
could obtain any Injunction parte orders vacatng
orders of Injunction granted by other Judges who might
restrain the receivers proceedings. Mr. Binnger also
OF 9 az
such property
lanes f. Morgan brother inaw Of McCunn, desired to
explan as TO certain payments OF money which he had
made to McCunn about the time Of the pending OF the
Bininger case and particularly to $4,000 paid Apr j.
1870 by check to bearer the Gaatin Bank This he
said was afterward repaid by McCunn's check, which
was offered in evidence Mr.. Morgan also testified to the
wealth Of McCunn, acquired before he was elected
Roger A. Pryor made long statement with but little
bearing on the case.
Allen d. Miner auctIoneer of the late firm of Leeds
Miner testified that Justice McCunn had promised MIN
the selling OF the Bninger stock, saying that he con-
trolled the natter afterward he failed to keep the
promise and gave the sale to Mr. Hertz a furniture
auetoneer who had not previously had sales OF liquors
and groceries, while Miners firm was one Of experience
in such sales the proceeds would have been much
LARGER had the sale conducted by an auctoneer OF
experience In such matters.
The next case examined was that OF Corey against
Long in which McCunn appointed as receiver OF CO.
partnership property, James NJ Gano dentist another
brotherin-aw Of the Judge The order appointing inc
receiver which is in evidence originally drawn by
Cen r. A. Pryor. attorney for plaintiff, aud when sub
mtted to Judge McCunn for signature, was merely an
order to show why receiver should not DC up
pouted Parts of the order were struck out and when
signed by Judge McCunn 1t was an absolute order that
James NJ be receiver, and this, 1t is claimed was
anarbitrary and illegal violation of the rules OF the
The first witness was DR.. Gano, the receiver In cues
ton who testified that he took possession OF about 5000
worth of property but that about halr OF ~ was eA
pended in lawyers fees, keepers fees and
sl own Commissions as receiver An assignee in bank
ruptcy subsequently appointed TO %no se a nd
$1,000 for the creditors both parties to the suit oeng
lett without means The counsel Tor pL Saao Was s, MT
on the receivers bond The principal , point
TO which the exan nrie HrSpr made 0d ST judge Me
Cnnp directing the RECOVER 70 pay over 500 81 Tue
money counsel fees to PyGr pine e pqadsrsa the
services and the figures are written over Tue ha
figures order The receiver testified 70 payng tine the
order never having seen him before or since a9 M
from him voucher for the order a t hsh hs
Ter in which it Is charged that McCunn made an er pare
order appointing Dr. Gano receiver OF the Vs. ~
Twenty.fourth-st the building being owned by Judge
McCunn Some trouble occurred between Mrs. bu.er
and Mrs. Elliott with whom she mao conuacy ~, .iS
Gouse and 10 enforce claims order was obtained
from Judge McCunn appointing Gano receiver James r.
Moroen being his counsel and surety. The money que
Mrs B,tler for rent was collected by Gano, and her
boarding broken up subsequently ae
and snnled on account Of McCunn's claims Tor rent
Gano testified that lie paid over the money without
taking any receipt or voucher other than Ine
attachment. ,... .o.ua.a "a rooat.
inc Mc(,unn and Gano with Morgan, AZ the mouse IN
vfonrthst and that McCunn personally gave direc
tons Concerning the house. and offered TO let II TO the
tsstided In relation the case OF Brandon agt Buck
the celebrated Fenian fund case, In which n Is claimed
1 YrdCe Wcc,nnn unwarrantably appointed Hanrahan
yecn1ver and compelled q member or the frm or Bel
mont 20 10 pay $4,000, under penalty OF being
sent to jail -.
TEIEGPAPUIC NOTES