New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-01-04
RECEIVERSHIP ABUSES.
SOMETHING EVEN MORE RAsCALLY THAN
THE REFEREE SYSTEM.

IN THE CASE.
The abuses of the Referee system, as lately
exposed In the columns of THE TRIBUNE, I'LL only one
page Of the book enormities practieed by
the judicial Ring OF this city stand recorded The
public. having become acquainted with the prominent
characters who figured extensively and with such pc
euniary advantage to themselves In the former chap
ters will no doubt be Interested 20 ind the same
individuals figuring quite as extensively ana
with greater pecuDiary sehadyantage IN TINS story
OF tReceverships And it IL highly proper that they
should for men who had shown themselves 30 apt al
computation in cases wherein they had power only to
SELL" could scarcely be deficient In calculation In cases
wherein they had power Ia keep " for 1.-THE reader VIII
remember while the duties of the Referee are chiefly
hear and decide tho disputes concerning property
which side the other has IN hts possession, the
paramount duty the to take the disputed
property into his pending the dispute
and very often happens that he nbbes away at the
subject OF contention until when the dispute Is enned'
there is nothing left for either tgant Douot A. ns
may TO the general reader many Instances
have been furnished which show that Ia stricuy anu
shamefully true.
Some facts on record IN the OF BALDWIN ana
others against Eazler and others, now pending on
appeal the Superior Court show that In controversy
in that between these parties IN relation 70 certain
real estate, Vim. NJ Tweed, IT,, appointed Receiver
OF that real estate, which he was directed to con-
vert into money. paying the net proceeds TO plain
nothing received by the Receiver, and plain
tiffs' afhdayits state that she failure OF the
Receiver to obtain the property was owing
omission and lack Of diligence Owing To such
failure the real estate sold on execution by plain
tifs who obtained control OF mortgage which they
caused TO be foreclOsed Pending the foreclosure the
plaintiffs in order the rents sad real estate
instituted proceedings supplemental TO execution IN
which proceedings VIM r. Tweed, was again appointed
Receiver and collected sixiOnths rent which after de-
Quoting agents commissions Of i've per cent, and Dill
for repairs amounted To tSs "a On April 10, 1871 the
Receiver applied TO Judge Spencer for an accounting
and disc barge. Upon that motion he presented an
account showing that his expenses Us eueh BE
ceiver amounted TO &3s5 so, leaving net balance
ia favor Of the estate OF S. These expenses included
ts2 Receivers fees 500 counsel fec and extra services
20 H. NJ Coyer who n clerk In the Attorney
oce) and $50 counsel Toe OF VIM Edelsten, law partner
Of Tweed, the Receiver Judge Spencer inmated that
he would not allow the account az presented, and
the Receiver withdrew his motion, but subseauenty
renewed II before another Judge, VINO granted the
application June 1871, approving the account,
and disohargDg the Receiver aud his sureties The
plaintiffs claimed that the item" Receivers fees,
sEj2 WIS improper because 1t was more than
50 per cent Of the amount collected, ana that the
rule and practice OF our have fixed Receivers fees
at per cent, allowed TO executors and so'
mnlstraors that the Receiver cannot under the rule
lieu thereof" that the extra services claimed to have
been performed we're only the that devolye upon
the Receiver himself; and that tho item Coats ana
counseIfee Edesten, $50" was not allowable, be-
proof furnished OF any thing dons by MN IN
the suit points OF equal strength were raised
but the Judge overruled them all and approved the
account from. which Judgment the plaintiffs have ap
pcaled.
In the suit AZ CarR against Dninger for accounting
and settlement c: partnership affairs, in the superior
!
celver and D. II. Hanrlhan, law partner ~ {" GrstE
Morgan was appointed Rece4yer. The duties OF Re
performed by Morgan 60 rar as they were
performed all At the sale OF the partnership effects
Morgan WA present but Hanrahan was not Before the
sale took place the application OF the creditors Judge
Jones granted injunction restraining such sale. but
Morgan procured order removing the lnunc don. and
Immediately proceeded with the sale. The pro
perty was alleged 10 be worth 10000, but It
sold az a great sacrifice, Morgan claiming that "
realized only about $4,000 The Receiver gave bonds IN
$1,000 only and Morgan bceame Ms surety. After the
sale, a motion made TO Judge Jones IN
treauire the Receiver TO give additional Sc
city and an order issued requiring the Receiver
10 furnish security s4OOOCo which HInrahau being
unable to do, Thomas J. Barr, who did furnish the
NECESSARY amount appointed In his stead, and on
motion whole matter was referred to T. j. Daring
ton before whom Hanrahan was ordered ~ give All
account Of his Receivershlp. On this reference
IL has appeared that Hanrahan employed Morgan az
counsel at an expense of $4,000 another attorney
az an Expense of s. the latter having really
done what Morgan employed 10 do; that Charles
Morgan q brother of "Gratz" Morgan. Hanrahan's
brother and I've six Others were employed there as
watchers ut about eight nino months ut an expense
Of from IS 10 $40 day each.
Leaving now for the present the Superior Court and
turning to the Supreme Court the same anontabe CON
dtiou OF affairs will be found. For between these two
ti,. A Ius IL the nnia
choice which which WIS given the ancient mariner be-
tween scylia and Chary bds well suder wreck
OH the sharp points OF the a. he overwhelmed In the
depths OF the other Instances of corrupt vortsm and
other improper conduct in the matter Of Receiyershps
on the part Of Supreme Court Judges are 80 numer
ons and fragrant to recall wildly the history Of the
seventeenth century when the courts were only part
Of the tyraio machinery whereby the governing party
oepy maintained themselves nj the expense OF the
erusd IL il the opinion OF lawyers generally that
Judge BaInards action IN any one OF the
infamous Erie suits will furnish sufficient grounds
for his Impeachment although ~ IL not pre-
tended that there not much other misconduct that
can be brought against him In OF these suits on
an spplicatiOn e1 parte made the ISL OF June. $780,
DO aDoolnted his "Gratz" Coleman Receiver 0f the
90 oS shares Of the Erie Railway Companys stock be-
Longing 70 the English shareholder, represented by
Heath and Raphael and Of all similar stock Thereafter To
III, presented transfer directing him TO cause oil
said stock nc trHD.ferred 10 DIS own name as such ~
ceyer although appeared Ivy the papers that none Of
the plaintiffs had any title legal or equitable, in this
stock and although the law requires that some title
must be shown BY pantif 10 the property IN
suit The order, M peculiar ana un u
.ual terms "enoned the Company from hegl7cting DC
refusing IA deliver and transfer IN said Receiver all the
stock moDey property Of which ne was ~ appointed
Receiver and from nescrlng tn Issue the proper GER
uncatss Pretending 10 be- Injunction it was reay
Mnndarns Under Il tht stock transferred To Cole
man and certificates Issued 10 him without the sig