The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-04
Evidence in Rebuttal and Easy Testi-
mOny for the Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OFFICERS ON THE STAND
Legal Ways and Means of Proving
the State Guilty.
MORE ABOUT BLACKMAIL SUITS.

SARATOGA, August 8, 1872.
The Court met at ten O'Clock A. NJ, thirty -four
members present.
Hamilton Harris resumed the stand and his cross
examination was continued by Mr.. Stickncy:-l
was not present when the $500 shares were sub
scribed to the Albany and Susquehanna Railroad;
there were some five or six injunctsons
served in the litigation connected with
that road; went to POughkeepsie with Sterling;
think David d. Field appeared in Albany on the
Monday after the books were closed; cannot say
whether IL was on the same or the next day when
went to POughkeepsie; l was informed that Judge
Barnard would be in Poughkeepse; cannot tell
who it was that informed me; don't recOl-
lect whether Fisk was in Albany at the
time; Sterling had the papers, think, and think
no went into the house with me; think Judge
Barnard then signed two papers; am positive he
did not sign 1--WE or six papers; do not know of any
one gong there at any other time to get papers
signed besides myself
witness was shown various papers, but he could
not positively identify them. Two Of them he
thought 1t probable were the papers he obtained.
Witness contnued--I was acting for Jay Gould
in this matter;
THE FISK PARTY
held majority Of the regular stock.
To Mr. Beach (whO handed witness paper -
This is copy of the subscriptions to the $500
shares, as entered on the books; my clerk made
the copy; itappears to be under contract entered
into in june 1852; the stamp shows that it was
executed in August, 1869.
MR.. DAVID DUDLEY FIELD
was then sworn. / was one of the counsel in the
litigation of the Albany and susquehanna Railroad |;
did only the counsel business; the attorney busl-
ness was done by the firm OF Sherman, Field IL
Sterling.
witness was asked to state the facts and circum
stances originating this litigation, but Mr.. Parsons
Directing, as the same information was contained
in the papers before the Court, Mr.. Beach did not
insist upon the question.
Mr.. Beach then asked witness to state the course
of the litigation in the Of the Union Pacific,
and was proceeding to do 30 when Mr.. Parsons
asked If he was testifyng to facts within his per-
Witness replied that his knowledge was derived
from his position as head OF the firm; he served no
was Informed OF its being done from time to time
as it was done he had, for the purpose OF refresh
ing his memory, some fifteen pages copied rom his
law register.
Mr. Beach thought the testimony competent-it
Mr. Parsons objected, and after argument on
both sides the Chair submitted the question to the
Court whether the objection should be sustained,
and it was decided in the negatve-9 to 10.
Witness then went on and detailed the proceed
THE MOTIONS AND NJUNcrIoNs,
explaining the same.
There was considerable argument when Mr..
Beach claimed that, the testimony OF Tracy as to
the proceedings before Judge Barnard having been
put in, it was only just that the testimony OF the
witness on the other side should be received. 1t
was decided that witness might go on under re-
strictiOns.
procure a1idavits from the officers OF the Union
Pacific Company as TO its management, but they
order was obtained directing the Officers to show
cause why an injunction should not issue.
In the testimony of Tracy that witness said he
had told Judge Barnard these were
FRAUDULENT OR BLACKMAIL SUITS,
and that 10 was never intended to carry them
forward
Mr. Field stated, in contravention of this that the
suits were still pending, having been carried for
ward; witness was present when Duront was I'M
der examination before Judge Barnard; in the
course of his testimony Durant said he had heard
that Judge Barnard had said he had driven one
egi anoer did mot nea any repy
from Judge Barnard to this declaration !; I would
have heard 1t II there was any response he knew OF
no conspiracy or corrupt action IN any of this
litigation as between Judge Barnard and the
parties applying to him for the orders; have had
much business with Judge Barnard but never was
at his house. nor ever had q moments private
conversation with him.
Crosse xamined by Mr.. Parsons Knew of noin-
the litigation; have no recollection OF seeing
them together; can't explain why there was delay
in the decision when motion was made by the
opponents OF Fisk, nor can explain why there was
prompt decision when FISK moved.
Counsel asked witness concerning his
RELATIONS WITH JUDGE BARNARD
and whether there was not some difficulty between
Mr.. Beach objected.
Mr.. Parsons responded that the witness had
been asked by the respondents counsel as to his
intimacy with Barnard with view that 1t was not
osae Now he had asked
in order to learn whether contrary relation did
not exist between the parties, whether he the
witness, was not hostile to the Judge, and thus,
through threats, secured the orders
The Chair ruled that the question was not com
petent.
vote of the Court was called for, but Mr.. Par
sons withdrew his question before the vote was
completed.
hall. and underwent very searching examination
and crossexamination as to the proceedings in this
litigation.
THOMAS G. DURANT
OF the Union Pacific Railroad, was examined He
remembered the time when he was examined be-
fore Judge Barnard, and both D.. ID. Field and
Tracey were present / said to the Judge that the
directors were under an impression that this was a
blackmal suit, and that they would have to come
down or would have to leave town; he asked who
said that, and answered that 1t was attributed to
him Judge Barnard he asked for the authority
and told him the authority was General Blair
This witness was not crossexamined.
Hamilton W. Ruggles was sworn and examined
as to the New York Pier and Warehouse Company,
and related the proceedings In electing Directors
His testimony was similar to that already taken.
John i. Devlin was sworn and testified in the
matter of an order to reopen the doors of Tammany
Hall; he was q member OF the firm who made the
application TO Judge Barnard; the question Of
Judge Barnard being
MEMBER OF TAMMANY,
and not permitted by law TO take jurisdiction OF
the matter, was discussed before Judge Barrett the
order was vacated: ! did not make the original
application; ! opposed the motion TO vacate the
ORDER, for the reason that | did not think
the ground II was based upon sound
did not know that Judge Barnard was
member OF Tammany when the order was applied
for; know that there is a press OF business and
haste In these matters and they seldom have time
to examine papers. The crosse Examination of this
witness was immaterial.
To Mr.. Beach--Al that Judge Rarnard had to do
in this matter was to issue an order OF Injunction
and an order to show cause why 1t should not be
made perpetual; the action was to prevent Tweed
from getting possession OF the General Committee.
JAMES J. srEELIs,
an oficer OF the Supreme Court Chambers, was
sworlI and testified that he has been stationed
there for about four years; Judge Barnard held
CHAMBERS In June and september, 1871; assisted