New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-03-23
THE JUDICIARY INVESTIGATION.

CHARGES AGAINST JUDGE MCUNN - APPOINT
MENT OF RELATIVES As RECEIVEES-CAs E
or BININGER AGAINST CLARK.
Judge McCunn appeared yesterday before
the judiciary Committee in answer TO charges preferred
against him by d. Mcdonald, in connection with he
some what notorious of Clark act. Biningcr. The
widely different characteristics of Judge McCunn and
Judge Bernard who was. the day previous. in sim
liar position, was forciby Illustrated. The latter
sumed, during the whole cXaminaton reckless, swag
gering air OF indifference, while Jude McCunn, yescr
day. was nervous. suave and possessed with desire TO
concate every person with whom ha came in contact
The bill OF complaint cnbOdcs single case, and is sab
stantally follows:
That about Nov 49, 1852 action brought nv A. T. Clark
Bnugr for dissolution Of Iarnrp and the sppontmen
rnSa DANIEL HsPrsts, vha MAS ibs parne Of Jamrs T.
Sopgsn p enaW Of JSIse Mccasn u. Morgan bel been
in La1erp Sh oO Mrn, that .r a'T W, vas Gos11m rea
s S ons o. ID the Of G % '
shin to Morgar and Morgan to his brother Morgan
Nov % 1919 order made BY Jge fan requiring the plaintiff
that while M matter pending judge MeCanr ,e-
ee aIi oH of p S9 sH Jse G sf
e iTaf .posSr or he pTopl Aforesaid that IN March 1870
Morgan anrfaH adveit.e The partnership properly
sifanne the sse day following While judge
Application Of james + Morgan granted d..ong The urc
91 ana VA, ine .ag o Nv & s 1 ZONES
dissolved that he wo and nv the suoneer sd won
McCann was ut aside purpo meanwhile
property had been sold between 100000 and $1,000 having
s sss1 Of judge Mecanni that eleen agreed
mon br the coun eel on both sides upon Judge
Me- plaintiff refused it, that 40 barrels Of whisky
sa s r aS that on Ap $50 JUDGE Jone. made IN order requiring
bonds +, and that such bonds never
gwen 80 n. ,. ~, ...a,
was plaintiff the suit OF Clark agi. Binnger which
was for dissolution OF partnership in the wholesale
liquor business being applied to for an d and
who gave bond OF $4,000 the partnership property
was sold for $4,000, while IL worth considerably
more. Witness further testified that the appointment OF
n receiver was applied for mt Judge McCmns residence,
but that the order not granted until The following
day in court; that Judge McCunn named Murray Hon
man, but that at the suggestion OF MI compton,, VII
ness's counsel, Hanrahan was appointed witness ad
mtted that Judge McCunn refused preferred present
OF "A case Of brandy. - -,
rated the evidence relative to the circumstances OF
HaDrahan's appointment rs receiver r. N Bangs YES
titled that he represented party in the case OF clark
against Bnnger in State and United States Courts
He approved the course OF Judge McCunn III the CON
fict Of Jurisdiction which occurred and believed MN 10
be right resenting the interference OF the united
States Courts Witness denied the statement made by
city newspaper, that Judge McCunn had appropriated
the proceeds OF the suit. ~
by Harahan capacity receiver; witnesses part
ner was landlord OF Hanrahan, who accepted pro.
liquors which had been extensively advertised; that
Judge Jones Of the Superior Court granted an I pure
order stopping the SALE that application was made or
modification O the order the ground that pecunar
loss would be caused by the p0spOnenent OF SAFE tt
Judge McEunn ordered the sale to be proceeded VIII
and also that the proceeds should be deposited WIN inc
United States Trust Company.
James +. Morgan, counsel for Hanrahan, produced
in from 1864 To date aud READ 10 the Cc
mncnn al esed tina, he had not
more than $500 from receyerships given by Judge
McCuDn that he had been appointed receiver or
except at the request Of the counsel representing
the litgauts.