The New York herald., 1872-04-24
The Committee on the Marine Court
in Session.
Examination and Testimony OF
Several Witnesses.
What Mr.. Leary Has to Say On the Subject
Of Perjury.
THE PROTEST OF MIR. J. D. TOWNSEND.


much apparent interest.
JOHN A. GODFREY, attorney and counsellor, stated
that he came forward in consequence Of certain
ports he had read in the morning papers in which
his name was mentioned. He stated that in Octo-
Der, 1870, there was a case-Holdsworth vs.. LOw-in
which he appeared as attorney for the paintf. The
action was for goods sold and delivered, and he
moved before Judge Joachimsen for reference,
and the Judge declined to hear the motion unless a
bill of particulars were furnished. The bill OF parti-
culars was served, involving an Indebtedness Of
$1,1O0. An order was made by Justice Joachimsen,
referring the case to Joseph G. Levi in October,
1870 The case was continued from time
to time, and the referee made a report
in favor OF the plaintiff, on February 4,
1871, for $S43. The judgment appealed
from on Feb Q, 1871. The case has been on the
calendar ever since and he has been making every
effort to have the case brought to trial. but without
avail, as both Judge Shea and Judge Joachimsen
declined to hear the case on the grounds of being
intimately connected with parties interested. Both
the judges state that 1t Is a
MATTER DELICACY
with them, and they declined to hear the case. In
the case OF Born against Janosek-Pincas witness
was attorney for plaintiff, and commenced the ac-
tion with an attachment. A motion was made to
vacate the attachment, and it up before Judge
Joachimsen, and owing to illness Of other counsel
the case was postponed until the 10th. Shortly
after a person named Dinkel produced some
afidavits ana applied for an order vacating the
attachment. The motion was denied. On the
18th witness took an inquest before Judge Tracy;
on the 10th he received order to show cause why
the default should not be opened; on the oath he
received another order to show why the order
made on the 23d should not be modified on the
Goth the came before Judge Tracy, and he mod
ifed the order Of the 23d; the finally came up
before Judge Joachimsen in Part 3, and
Judge Joachimsen declined to hear 1t on
the grounds of delicacy; he insisted upon
hearing and firfSlly Judge Joachimsen
referred the case to Judge Alker; he has had the
honor of being appointed referee seven times, four
OF which were made by Judge Joachimsen; four
Of these cases were made by consent of parties and
three by the Court; in two OF these cases he had
been swndled out OF his fees. Mr.. Godfrey under
crossexamnation, stated that Mr.. Levi had been
appointed referee by order of the Court; was for
merly partner Of Judge Joachlmsen; our partner
ship ceased siv years ago; Judge Joachmsen is my
brothern-law
Mr. Malcolm Campbell came forward to testify In
relation to evidence given by Mr. Haywood at the
last session OF the committee. The case was Barry
against the Bowery Savings Bank. Witness gave
long history of the parties connected with the
|
| ing several bank accOunts-one in her own name,
one In that of herself and husband conjontly, and
one in the name OF Mary Casey in trust
for Ellen Barry; ut her death Mr.. Haywood
claimed the money in trust for Ellen Barry; l
| brought suit in behalf OF Coghan admnistra-
| tor in the Superior Court; by consent we agreed
| to leave the money in the
BOwERY SAVINGS BANK
as stakeholder; shortly after received from the
attorneys OF the BOwery Savings Bank notice
that they had been sued by Ellen Barry for
the amount; an order was served on me inter
with the Bowery Savings Bank; the case
came up in the Marine Court before Judge Curtis;
Mr. Heywood argued MS M case and handed in brief
two days afterwards Judge Curtis decided in my
favor, and on the following day got certified
copy OF the order of the Judge and went down to
the United States Trust Company and drew the
money, which paid over to my client; motion
self self and d % my client to make US sss' pay baSk a
that money; the motion came up before
| Judge Joachimsen and there were several suits
| brought to the same effect; finally Mr.. Haywood
engaged Mr.. J. p. Joachimsen as counsel; the case
| afterwards came up before Judge Tracy, who de-
cided for the defendant; the case s now appeal.
Mr.. Campbell, cross-examination, stated that
Judge Curtis treated Mr.. Haywood with every
tesy during the hearing OF the case, and he had not
heard him refuse to take the papers for considcra
| tiOn.
| made the following affdavit:-
| CITY and County Of Nep Fork ss:-Thomas W. Pitman
Ssne s state N y York ann and at pesen reside e the
% article Which sppesrsa @ ne ono sSn'ean'aSSs 'Se
5ss s,sIs
1f
S.@sn
his connection with q law firm Of which
sES% With Sa $ Mnat and anSsT
what h for wnat & and under what
than year Judge Curtis and have not beer BEEN on
%RGn spsssSs aJu% oeae F% e
% M 9ss the os sno OF nar attacks &C @ against him
TO
Tse sss ss' sass sna
%%a 'aens
S'af! Gar
myself and the different members Mr. Gardners arS'
@ l Jass s cnr:
nf 70 aSs sSs %s,sr @ ss's6
5sassa 6s prSprsy snsh action while held the
Judge Curtis and ye at
ssss ea9Snsr ,ef .s with &
their knowledge. Judge Curtis manifested The. most
sS
vs: ,s, :Sss, '$$
%sss:,sa g., Ss; osSG%s
S ss S%st 9ss a,s wss 1ss
my knowledge he never received from the bust.
ness or profits Of the firm more than two hundred
dollars, which were paid to him myself as a repay
ment Of ike amount which he had advanced to pay tho
office rent sincerely believe that Judge Curtis became
amember Of that firm, which lasted about four months
only, simply as matter Of friendship to the members
thereof and with the hope that the use Of his might
would prove pecunary benefit to himself never entered
his mind As stated by Mr. Gardner thirteen
were sent to of those six only tried and i'm te
balance the parties never appeared AS to the amount
OF moneys which were received by the firm
from those cases ! unable 10 state as no
settlement has ever been made with me. About four
months after the organization the Judge Curtis in
formed me that hc was disgusted with the firm and
MS position In connection with II, and requested
me TO remove his sign and all other iisdca OF his
relationship with it. which did. am on friendly |
terms with the Judges of the Marine Court the ex
ception OF Judge Curtis and have no fault to find with
any OF them; but In common dccency have considered
1t my duty to furnish the above statement
THOMAS W. PITMAN.
Sworn to before this I'D day OF April s72-BKsJA-
MIN = CARPEsrER Commissioner OF Deeds, city and /
county of New York
Mr.. Florence Leary, attorney and counsellor
stated that he commenced an action in the Marine
Court OF Martin Read against Monmouth B. Wilson,
vas In |