The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-17
Continuation Of the Argument for
the Prosecution.
JUDGE VAN COTT's SUMMARY.
Reviewing the Erie, Susquehanna and
Pacific Mail Litigation.
EFFECT or BARHARDs MJuNCffONs.
COunsers Demand for the Mild Punishment
Provided by the Constitution.


SARATOGA, August le, 1872
The Court met at ten A. NJ Thirty-nve members
we're present.
ARGUMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION
Judge Van Colt, of the counsel for the prosecu.
zion, resumed his argument at the point where he
LEFT or yesterday criticsing the orders issued In
4he Nyce case restraining the Erie Railroad Com.
pany from transferring the stock belonging to the
English stockholders.
The counsel then took up the order issued on the
succeeding day, appointing receiver OF that stock
Respondents counsel said that Judge Barnard, dis
covering an error on his part, made in the order Of
tho 22d Of June, restraining the transfer, revoked
that order on the Esd and issued another.
How was 1t, he discovered an error on his
part, that he repeated the order and increased
Its enormity by adding 70 It the appointment Of
receiver Mr.. Beach replied that the second order
was issued upon new facts presented. Mr.. Van
Cott said the counsel was continually falling into
error concerning these facts. Judge Barnard did
not revoke his order Of Injunction, and proceeded
70 state that the first order was issued in March,
and following that there were two or three other
orders.
On the 22d Of June there was stipulation that
there was mistake to violating the injunction,
and proceedings were stopped "a to contempt.
There was no revocation OF the order
~ alleged Judge Barnard finding that
ne had made an error. The counsel then
Feferred incidentally to the case In which
Judge Barnard issued an order to show cause In
the Union Pacific Railroad, returnabe at a certain
future day But before the arrival of that day he
Issued another order er parte appointing a re-
cever, thus seriously interfering with the construc
1ion Of great transcontinental railroad. Return
ing TO the case In which the order was issued
putting the stock OF the Erie stockholders in the
hands OF q receiver, the counsel referred to the
Herincation Of the complaint made by James Fisk,
IT., and complained that 1t was entirely In
sun1cient. He asked II 1t was legal and
proper to dispossess o man OF his prop
,erty simply on the knowledge and belief
Of another man. The counsel then referred to
the EFFORT made to have the So 000 600 Of stock reg
istered so that 1t would become marketable after
It was released from the Injunction, and asked why
Flax and White secured the order restraining Its
registration. Some one had q motive for this act,
and who was 1t We find Judge Barnard making
this unlawful order to prevent the registration and
In all these orders there no cause, but, never
theless, they were issued, and, by manipulation
on the part Of Jay Gould,
THREE MILLION DOLLARS THIS STOCK WAS
ACTUALLY STOLEN,
30 the evidence shows, and we md that 10000
shares locked up; put in the hands Of james
II. Coleman; for what purpose Why, that they
should not be voted upon. And what Is the result
Are they not voted upon When the election time
arrives this James H. Coleman goes to the office and
votes on these shares for the Erie party Was this
the case, by order OF Judge Ingraham is carried,
70 ns disgrace Of the State into the United States
Judge Blatchford then made an order taking
this stock out OF the hands Of Coleman and hand.
Why, the counsel for Fisk appears in the Court with
a notice discontnuing the suits which had origi;:
they meant anything besides simply selling on the
books and stock for q certain purpose9 Could the
States COurss Then, on the 18th Of February Rob.
tnson was appointed receiver OF all the stock held
ns To on4 :@ on the Ma
es to cover the proceeding In the United States
the ss
ehrewd lawyers as they are fell into the trap Of this
discontinuance Of the suits. They thought the pro:
ONCE q his VI lawyers he was served with
said counsel. Judge Barnard knew this trick.
He was fully aware Of it, 1t was such conduct
oil law There was another nsgrant circumstance
In this connection. On the 18th OF September he
esa making H sss
ders, and yet he made this order which was disas
to judiciary this state
Robinson was IN close intimate association with
na He He TO
rom Gould for barnard, who says he borrowed it
from James lie koT ,Ss anTs
days before Robinson was appointed receiver he
was told by Fisk that he was to be appointed.
Was 1t not known then that there was to be
snap appointment Of a receiver as soon as the
counsel then passed to the case OF the Union Pacific
Railroad crtlcizing the validity ofthe claim Of Fisk
pany. Fisk claimed to have paid certain price for
the stock whereas he had not paid the price en-
Sere He Claimed that this was not case an
inJuncton the company was abundantly able to
make rSs Sa ne ms s
ierlng with the election Of directors, He asked
were unit men to 6e elected to public ONCE could
get injunction from any Court restraining an cleo
any conceivable reason for the issue OF an In
junction on the complaints In these cases, which
supposed. keierrng to ali these orders he asked
they were merely accidental and without purposes
then AZ to the effect OF this order
MAKING TWEED A RECEIVER,
v which stopped work on road struggling for
ns Any ssa CT could sss
said counsel, that the object Of this suit was TO
As NJ &c: sas s Of aas:
to He m wSS sss TO force rs
. remark addressed to one Of this Court
would be monstrous and intoerable insult; but
aSs an% nag s Sn 70
Cisco. Counsel then referred TO the effect OF the
orders on the financial affars Of the company Its
bonds before the orders were issued, sold for lO2
and Immediately fell to about 05. II had on hand at
the time some $40 900 OF bonds, and the loss suf
fered was enormous. He asked II Judge had the
right to strike such disastrous blows at the inter.
ests Of citizens and with his eyes wide open to
their enectS Counsel then discussed the eject Of
the orders in the case Of the
ALBANY AND sUsQUBHANNA RAILRoAD
company and the authority for them. He contro-
verified the necessity for these orders and showed
that the complaints could have been answered by
other legal proceedings. What these parties
wanted, said counsel, to carry an election, and
TO do this was necessary to get possession OF the
stock held by Groesbeck; TO get 1t In the hands OF
receiver. This was the first step. Then they
needed TO get possession Of the books and all this
in order that the parties could steal possession OF