The New York herald., 1872-04-21
CARDOZO'S COUNTER CASE.

10 THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD
The following are the real facts in the case Of
Judge Cardozo as 1t appears from the results of the
recent Investigation
The Gold Exchange Bank receivership, Charles ].
Osborne, brought suit to procure the appointment
of receiver Of that bank in September, 1859. The
papers showed that he was creditor and that the
bank was ins0lvent. That made a plain case for
the appointment OF o receiver. Augustus L.
Brown was the receiver No one can say aught
against him. subsequently, on the 4th and 9Th OF
October, 1869, Doyd and Hamilton and the Messrs.
Carver brought SUITS swearing positively that they
were creditors, and averring the insolvency of the
bank, and the same receiver was appointed. That
is the usual practice. II different receivers had
been appointed there would have been just ground
Of complaint for 1t would be contrary to the
general rule and lead to inextrcable confusion and
disputes between the conflicting receivers. The
banks affairs were In the greatest confusion and
Judge Barretts firm have sworn that they advised
client to have receiver appointed, and that the
only reason the advice was not acted on was that
Osborne had got the start Of them.
AS to the order made on the 9th OF October 1862
fixing Browns fees and directing the payment OF
various sums of money to different parties and as
to another order substituting Conrad N. Jordan as
receiver In place OF Mr.. Brown, the following Inn
portant fact, which has been concealed, should be
remembered. The orders were made upon the
written consent OF the attorneys for all the parties
interested, Martin Smith being attorneys for the
bank, Newell, Denman Prentiss and Barretts a.
Redfeld being attorneys for the other parties.
Judges never examine an order consented to by
all parties. The attorneys who consented were OF
the most reputable In the city.
All the other orders about the payment OF money.
were made on the application Of the banks own
selected manager, Mr. Jordan and after Its affairs
The suggestion that Osborne was not creditor
when he brought the suit Is utterly untrue; but
the Judge know anything about itY
The actions against the Gold Exchange In which,
at the suit OF various brokers, Judge Cardozo
granted injunctions were similar to suits in which
similar injunctons were granted by other Judges,
including Judges Clerke, Sutherland and Brady.
Judge Cardozo bnt by JudUe Gerke II is nosiyey
proven that Judge CardOzO had no acquaintance
with either of the parties to any either Of the
he knew either Fisk or Gould or that he knew any,
thing about the matters in the suits, except just
what the papers submitted to him for his judicial
action disclosed.
The receivership OF the Mercantile Insurance
Company was granted on the 3lst October, 1871 and
hearing both sides. The papers submitted, when
the order for the appointment Of the receiver was
made, showed that the capital was impaired twenty
five per cent, and that the company was ins0lvent.
positive affidavit OF this fact was annexed to the
complaint.
got from the superintendent leave to make up the
deficiency In the capital and upon that being made
10 appear inc same Judge vacated the receiyerShip
and the counsel nor receiver got any fees. The
case OF Brown vs. Leveridge, &C.. was one where
the complaints showed that the principal defendants
were fraudulent trustees, who had taken undue
advantage of young lady their ward) In such
cases II Is every day practice to appoint receivers
The fees Of the receiver and his counsel were not
fixed by Judge CardozO but by Judge Sutherland
who also tried the case and held that the trustees
had acted fraudulently The habcas corpus matter
either Is very simple the statute has always required
three or two justices to hold the Court Of Special
Sessions When three were required two only sat-
When two were required only one sat. When this
appeared the prisoner was entitled to his
discharge. Divine's case, decided by Mr.. Justice
Sutherland III Alb. p r., p. 9O), settles that.
The Pearsall-C0nnor case was-one In which the
Judge sought to save little girl about five years of
age from being brought up In q house OF prostitu
tion. 1t needs nothing more than this statement
the heart of every rghtminded person Is with him
In that matter.
In the case OF Fields Fields the lawyer called
In support OF the charge said there nothing In
Judge Cardoz0s conduct to censure.
In regard to the references sent to Gratz Nathan
and Others no complaint Is made that the referee
did not do his duty. The fees when not consented
to by both parties, were fixed according to prece-
dent in the Supreme Court In the case OF Ames vs.
Ames. In regard to sending to his relative, Judges
Ingraham, Sutherland and John II. Brady send to
THEIRS and Judge Barrett, since his election, has
sent In month thirtythree, and ten OF them to
one of his own relatives. By publishing this true
statement of the facts you Will Ohli0e It'STIGH