The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-04-26
THE 'LORD" GORDON-G GOULD Cash.
Application for the appointment Of Receiver
and an Injunction on Behalf Of Plaintiff.
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.
Adjournment Of the Whole Case Until
Thursday Next.

The case of Gordon, alias Lord Gordon, vs.. Jay
Gould, came up again yesterday according to adj
journment before Judge Brady, In Supreme Court
Chambers. The court room was well filed and \
good deal OF interest was manifested In the pro-
ceedngs Application for
THE APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
on behalf Of the interests Of Gordon was made by
Mr. Strahan, and an injunction ordered against the
defendant
Mr.. David Dudley Field, who appeareN for jay
Gould, addressing the Court, said-YOur Honor wa
are not prepared to go on with that motion until
the other motions In these proceedings are dis
posed Of
Judge Brady-I supposed they were all to be
heard together.
Mr. Field-That is precisely what we don't want,
the preliminary matter is whether or not we hayd
the right to put Gordon to the oath, and until we
do that, until 1t is decided that we cannot do It.
beg to call upon the Court to call the other mo.
ton.
Judge Brady-On that point I have decided that
you cannot examine the parties on the motion.
Mr. Feld-Ths Is not an order to examine the
defendant, but an order granted by Your Honor re-
curing the defendant to appear and be examined,
for the purpose primarily, OF calling the plaintiff to
prove his complaint, and we suppose that when the
case Is before the Court on that we have the right
as In the case OF Havemeyer to examine him geneS
rally in regard to the case The order was granted
returnable on the 18th Of April but, the defendant
not being found 1t was extended to the 18th, when
an application was made by the defendant to va
cate that order, and 1t Is that motion we are now
ready to argue and which we ask the Court to hear
first.
Mr.. strahan-On the I'd April Gordon commenced
an action against Gould. In that action various
orders were granted upon which to found that APP
plication for the appointment of receiver. The
papers were saved In that action and day fixed
nearing i
the statement that on the action at the instance Of
Gould vs. Gordon the plaintiff wants information
formation he desires with the motion for the ap-
pontment OF a receiver in reference to the moneys
were three cases before the Court set down for
hearing at this time. The first is that of Gordon
q receiver The second is that at the instance Of
Gould vs.. Gordon called Action No. l, In
M0 eosTed IN ass ~ se a6 @
specified purpose, which he had failed to apply
as requested or directed he got an order Of arrest
procured through false representations made by
GOuld-an imposition upon the Cortland we ask
third Is upon the action called No. 2 Gould vs.. Cor
don, the merits Of which have not yet been dis
seeks ito recover damages for fraud" &c. He now
wants an order of examination with respect to the
upon his own stating, must be within his knowl.
edge, and the Information which he asks is, there
S w s Se s o
and we ask that they be all tried together.
Mr.. Field observed that he was ready to proceed
with the motion for the examination Of the defen-
dant Gordon, but he was not ready In the others.
He read ailidayits made by Jay Gould and Elihu
Root, to the effect that Messrs Sears and Scott
were material witnesses in the case but yet they
were unable to find them. On these affidavits he
moved for the postponement Of the suits he
ferred to.
Mr.. Strahan-Our action is for the purpose Of
having receiver appointed on certain moneys and
securities taken from on March %. meet the
afldavits now read by the statement made by Mr..
Gould In his answer in this complaint,
In which he recites the various Misrepresentation
Gordon made to him, and in which he also SAYS that
"the defendant is informed and believes that the
representations made by the plaintiff aforesaid
false to the knowledge OF the plaintiff" Let them
tell us what 1t ts they propose to prove by these
witnesses and we win see Ii we cannot reply to 1t.
They published this morning the AFFIDAVIT Of Mr..
Greeley, and we willing to take 1t. That Is 4
sufficient answer as far Scott is concerned; and
as regards Sears, they don't show In what manner
his affidavit has any materially In the question
before us.
Mr. Field said all they desired was to have Gordon
placed on the stand, and they would then dispense
did not know that Gordon ever owned single
share OF Erie stock or not He did not believe q
word OF It, and the only way to arrive at the truth
was by the examination OF Gordon himself II Cor
ment to enable them to obtain the affdavits OF the
other witnesses in the case.
Mr.. Strahan said that Gould the stock In
Gordon's possession, and he now pretended to-
doubt that he ever had 1t at all. Their action I'm
this matter was characteristic, and they now
endeavOrfng to fish up evidence to substantiate the
outrage which they perpetrated.
Judge Brady said:-I do not perceive any differ
ence between this case and any other 1t involves
large sum of money, and am willing to give
every latitude to the investigation. will give Mr..
Gould reasonable time for the preparation OF the
case, but all the motions will be heard together.
06iOurnp6 Thursday